Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 82

Thread: The End of the World As We Know It

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Hilderinc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 02:05 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    England, Germany, Norway
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Illinois Illinois
    Location
    Not Chicago
    Gender
    Posts
    983
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Huginn ok Muninn View Post
    It's certainly in their best interests to awaken the sheep just enough to lead them away from the wolves.. if only to harvest them at their own leisure.
    That's my point, they create a problem, then offer a "solution" that benefits themselves, and everyone is all too happy to take their bait.

    A true solution must address both 'the problem' as well as the creators of that problem...

    Quote Originally Posted by Huginn ok Muninn View Post
    Oh, I think Jews are as scared as anyone (possibly more so) at the thought of a Muslim Europe.
    This is probably true, and the reason why they are so eager to get their two biggest enemies to destroy each other while conditions are ripe.

    Do you think it's any coincidence that common tactics they use are appeal to fear ("you will be the last white person left in your nation by the year 20xx!" "It's the end of the world!!!1") and anger (evil-"terrorists" and over-exaggerated media coverage about isolated acts of violence or sensationalism about a lone nut case talking about his plans for global Sharia law)?

    When the problem is examined logically and a solution is made using the same method, the masters of manipulation won't be able to use any tricks to save themselves.



    Our folk is sick and dying, and our folk must be the ones who find a solution and carry it out.
    All that is necessary for Evil to triumph is for good Men to do Nothing. ~ Edmund Burke

  2. #12
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    The Horned God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 30th, 2017 @ 08:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Irish
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    2,247
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilderinc View Post
    Don't let Mark Jew-Steyn get you too worked up about the evil-M0slims, now.

    His Tribe doesn't care too much about Europe or Germanics, you know.
    Steyn claims he isn't Jewish.

    Steyn was born in Toronto. He was baptized a Catholic and later confirmed in the Anglican Church;[3] he has stated that "the last Jewish female in my line was one of my paternal great-grandmothers" and that "both my grandmothers were Catholic".[4]
    Source.
    Whether or not he identifies with indigenous western Europeans is hard to fathom, but it is certainly true that Jews by and large look forward to the prospect of living in a Muslim controlled country with considerably less optimism than do most non-Jews.

    Consider the fact that the majority of pogroms carried out against Jews over the last 200 years (and there have been many) were carried out by Muslims in Muslim countries.
    Close observation may result in feelings of horror, wonder and awe at world you find yourself inhabiting.

  3. #13
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    The Horned God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 30th, 2017 @ 08:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Irish
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    2,247
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Schönenburg View Post
    It's curious. I have a hard time trusting Mark Steyn. He's a media-friendly neocon (j) that often talks cute and makes funny remarks, but if you analyse the actual substance of his writings, there's not too much there in terms of support for "the west".
    It's not a question of trusting him. I don't recommend you trust anyone, frankly. It's just a matter of listening to his arguments and if you find one you like, noting it down for future use.

    Half the time I get the feeling that he's basically functioning as a corporate sponsored safety valve to pacify the growing anti-immigrant opinion. His end message always ends in a strange gloomy despair.
    I don't see how you "pacify" anti-immigrant opinion by pointing out that the immigrants are set to become the majority in 2 generations.



    In this capacity, his frequent run-ins with angry moslems in Canada works more to establish "pro-western" credibility and bona fides for the growing right wing crowds. I can't seem to shake my suspicion for this guy. In the final analysis, the guy is a pro-immigration liberal, and race-blind assimilation is his goal.

    Race-blind assimilation is impossible with Muslims because they reject it. That should be obvious to almost everyone at this point. Steyn is certainly aware of that.He expressly states that westernizing Muslims is not the answer to anything because what happens with westernized Muslims (he takes 20th century Turkey as an example) is that when they adopt western birth rates they remove themselves as a demographic factor in about 2 or 3 generations, leaving the traditional Islamist Muslims to take over. Steyn points to this process as the main reason for the disappearance of Kemal Atatürks western leaning Turkey.

    So you can't accuse Steyn of not being up front. Some of his commentary is illuminating even to me.


    Is Steyn warning his readers of potential disaster that should be fought tooth and nail, or telling his readers to weep and accept the "inevitable" outcome? Whose interests is this man serving? When Steyn says things like ...


    "I'm going to miss all those blondes in Scandinavia once they have disappeared"


    ... whose side is he really on?
    I think he's just describing the future as he sees it. What each individual chooses to do with the information is up to them. I think Styen provided some robust arguments against mass immigration and he ends the discussion by stating that if a society needs mass immigration it means that there is something amiss with that society.

    At best, he seems to be your typical liberal. Hemming and hawing, refusing to take sides, standing on the sidelines and cracking ironic jokes about the whole thing, like hes watching some shakespeare play or situational comedy. As long as one keeps this in mind, I'm have no problem acknowledging that he has made one or two good points concerning the Islam issue.
    If he had made his case much more strongly I don't think it would have been aired. He said that mass immigration points to a sick society. How much more can he get away with saying? As soon as he makes the issue about race he will be excluded from most public discussions.



    Yes, all true, but at the same time Steyn's argument is a bit deceptive and avoids the more crucial point. It wouldn't even matter if, by some strange turn of events, the moslems actually made our nations even "better". Europe is still our homeland, and we have a natural birthright to our ancestral nations. In the end, we do not need to make any arguments as to why we should survive. We have a natural right to life.
    Of course I agree, but there are certain things you can't say if you want your views to be published in the national press. Making allusions to things like "homeland" or ethnic survival will just get you pigeon holed as a racist who can be safely ignored and excluded from any and all discussions.
    Close observation may result in feelings of horror, wonder and awe at world you find yourself inhabiting.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,446
    Thanked in
    645 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    I don't see how you "pacify" anti-immigrant opinion by pointing out that the immigrants are set to become the majority in 2 generations.
    It still has a pacifying part, since the problem is painted as the "west" vs Muslims. And he makes that point several times that you cant allow mass Muslim immigration as long as your own culture (not people, race, nation etc) isnt strong. And for culture he takes the "do what you want liberal ruleless west".

    Which of course by definition cannot be any form of "strong" culture.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    Race-blind assimilation is impossible with Muslims because they reject it. That should be obvious to almost everyone at this point. Steyn is certainly aware of that.He expressly states that westernizing Muslims is not the answer to anything because what happens with westernized Muslims (he takes 20th century Turkey as an example) is that when they adopt western birth rates they remove themselves as a demographic factor in about 2 or 3 generations, leaving the traditional Islamist Muslims to take over. Steyn points to this process as the main reason for the disappearance of Kemal Atatürks western leaning Turkey.
    The question shouldnt be whether race-blind assimilation is possible with this or that group of people, but whether it is desireable for the group of people that assimilates.

    The obvious answer is of course that assimilation of racial others is never desireable.

    Even Muslims are no homogenous group of people and even not culture, Islam in Asia or East Russia is something very very different from Islam in Arabic/North African countries.

    Race => ethnicity => culture is the forming definition. The major religions have distorted this natural order of things and reduced culture to an empty, exchangeable vessel, at least that is what they wanted. But fact is that it doesnt work.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    I think he's just describing the future as he sees it. What each individual chooses to do with the information is up to them. I think Styen provided some robust arguments against mass immigration and he ends the discussion by stating that if a society needs mass immigration it means that there is something amiss with that society.
    While this is true, he's off with some of his analysis what exactly is wrong with society. And he'll never understand it either, because he's a liberal, we're all equal if we just all adhere to the same "values" of western styled "freedom" (rulelessness) and "egality" (everyone is the same way dumb) etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    If he had made his case much more strongly I don't think it would have been aired. He said that mass immigration points to a sick society. How much more can he get away with saying? As soon as he makes the issue about race he will be excluded from most public discussions.
    Maybe, maybe not. He wouldnt touch the race topic because he doesnt even see it.

    When Sarrazin was fired after his book, of course many TV stations avoided even talking about him. On the other hand there have been interviews where he could talk about that the nation-state (and it was clearly defined as a group of people with the same racial background) is not yet dead and that in fact it is needed for the foreseeable future and that the multikult lovers just destroy their own society for empty ideals that have no basis in reality. Clearly stating that when you replace a country's population with racially different people this nation state, and the societal order it brought forth, will cease to exist. Even using the word genocide in that context.

    So actually, you can touch the race issue, and dancing around the point like all this pervert "new right" people do just serves the status quo instead of breaking the dogma.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    Of course I agree, but there are certain things you can't say if you want your views to be published in the national press. Making allusions to things like "homeland" or ethnic survival will just get you pigeon holed as a racist who can be safely ignored and excluded from any and all discussions.
    Thats the tail biting snake at work. With obeying the dogma that it's an untouchable subject you serve the system, even to the point that the socalled "new right" distances itself from those "evil racists". But the "new right" will change exactly nothing, they make themselves superfluous with that, while deceiving those who dont look closely and think that they're going to do something about the problem, which they will not. And then you end up with Muslims marching for "their" Britain in EDL rallies.

    It's just stupid to believe that you can be a "politically correct anti-mass immigration" supporter. It's just not politically correct, regardless of how you present it. Even the EDL is labelled "racist" and "far right", despite that is has more racial others than native Britons, who on top wave pro-Israel flags.

    With obeying the dogma, you only castrate yourself, and those who stand in for their convictions.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  5. #15
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Bittereinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, May 6th, 2019 @ 06:52 PM
    Ethnicity
    Boer
    Ancestry
    Netherlands, Germany & Norway
    Subrace
    Faordiby
    State
    Orange Free State Orange Free State
    Location
    Grootrivier
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Cognitive Dissident
    Politics
    Verwoerdian
    Religion
    Heretic
    Posts
    1,592
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    200
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    287
    Thanked in
    164 Posts
    Great assessment Schönenburg, in my view it is almost as if Steyn is saying: mass immigration can now be scaled back to a trickle, we have enough of a trojan horse to complete the job ie. diluting the native population to a more manageable level of "civilization". I believe this is the same thing Dan Roodt is after with his pursuit of renewed ties with the PVV Netherlands, whom has a little something else in common with Mark Steyn and Geert Wilders… All of them also share the picture of israel and the "west"... I would prefer that any day to the status quo, however the underlying causes being racial, cultural and economic will always remain. What is very valuable from this interview is the eloquent and articulate manner in which the threat, particularly to Christians are stated… Unfortunately the term post-Christian does mean that the effect will be rather limited even though the tipping point is very close. Now you have a bunch of lethargic Christians that does not really believe in their jewish god but rather loosely conforms to Christianity for the sake of “westernness” but has gladly adopted the newly declared god created again tailored for us by the jews ie. credit. I believe that while the construct known as the “west” is promulgated nothing will ever change.

    What really pisses me off about the "west's" apparent identity crisis is that they screwed us in the process... You might recover, we probably wont…

    Europe needs to rid itself of its jews, niggers and muzzies by mass repatriation and strictly enforce Nuremberg Laws 2.0 to rein in the mulatos if no other suitable place like Brazil will take them... Europe can easily repatriate racially acceptable people from the scattered enclaves of people like us Afrikaners in South Africa or rather Azania and SWA or rather Namibia, whom still possess a distinctly European character...

    Also, I believe Mark Steyn is being decidedly optimistic regarding America's prospects...

    Be all this as it may, one thing is always a recurring theme, the jews making their own trouble... Reminds me of Tolkien: With your left hand you would use me as a shield against Mordor and with your right you would seek to supplant me...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God View Post
    Steyn claims he isn't Jewish.

    Whether or not he identifies with indigenous western Europeans is hard to fathom, but it is certainly true that Jews by and large look forward to the prospect of living in a Muslim controlled country with considerably less optimism than do most non-Jews.
    This Article goes long way in showing his views on israel and jews.

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...west-tomorrow/
    Although the word "Commando" was wrongly used to describe all Boer soldiers, a commando was a unit formed from a particular district. None of the units was organized in regular companies, battalions or squadrons. The Boer commandos were individualists who were difficult to control, resented formal discipline or orders, and earned a British jibe that"every Boer was his own general".

  6. #16
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    The Horned God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 30th, 2017 @ 08:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Irish
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    2,247
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    It still has a pacifying part, since the problem is painted as the "west" vs Muslims. And he makes that point several times that you cant allow mass Muslim immigration as long as your own culture (not people, race, nation etc) isnt strong. And for culture he takes the "do what you want liberal ruleless west".

    Which of course by definition cannot be any form of "strong" culture.
    I took that to mean that he is saying that you simply can't have Muslim immigration, full stop. That is certainly the situation as it stands.

    The question shouldnt be whether race-blind assimilation is possible with this or that group of people, but whether it is desireable for the group of people that assimilates.
    Ok, agreed. But Steyn has outlined quite clearly why race-blind assimilation isn't desirable and won't work. It's just that he has pointed to things other than race as the reason.

    Race => ethnicity => culture is the forming definition. The major religions have distorted this natural order of things and reduced culture to an empty, exchangeable vessel, at least that is what they wanted. But fact is that it doesnt work.
    This may be the case but as soon as you would outline that theory to a TV interviewer you would be labeled a racist and would never be asked back again. So your career as a political pundit with the power to influence the general public would be severely curtailed. TV interviewers btw are terrible cowards by and large and more concerned with keeping their jobs than with anything else including nuclear Armageddon. So no matter what they might think privately they will be loath to be seen to be giving air time to a known racial heretic.


    While this is true, he's off with some of his analysis what exactly is wrong with society. And he'll never understand it either, because he's a liberal, we're all equal if we just all adhere to the same "values" of western styled "freedom" (rulelessness) and "egality" (everyone is the same way dumb) etc.
    Possibly. It's also possible that as someone of Jewish heritage he knows the meaning of racial identity very well and also how to navigate a hostile political landscape. The fact of the matter is that if you are a political author/commentator and you want to talk about mass immigration and at the same time reach a mass audience, you better not make your central thesis one of the "clash between inferior vs superior races".

    You might still just get away with talking about "cultures which do not best maximize human happiness/development" (or some similar euphemism for Islam) but that's the limit.

    Maybe, maybe not. He wouldn't touch the race topic because he doesn't even see it.
    I concede that he probably thinks that all races and ethnic groups have equal mental capacity. However he at least sees the Islamic meme for what it is; an extremely virulent and destructive infection of the intellect. As long as Islam is a religion of the Arab/Turkic race it really makes no difference whether he is against Islamic immigration or Arab immigration. The two things are inseparable.

    When Sarrazin was fired after his book, of course many TV stations avoided even talking about him. On the other hand there have been interviews where he could talk about that the nation-state (and it was clearly defined as a group of people with the same racial background) is not yet dead and that in fact it is needed for the foreseeable future and that the multikult lovers just destroy their own society for empty ideals that have no basis in reality. Clearly stating that when you replace a country's population with racially different people this nation state, and the societal order it brought forth, will cease to exist. Even using the word genocide in that context.

    So actually, you can touch the race issue, and dancing around the point like all this pervert "new right" people do just serves the status quo instead of breaking the dogma.
    Ok that is good to hear. So far however, I know of no commentator in the English language who speaks about the negatives of immigration by foreign races per se (as opposed to foreign culture bearers) who is taken seriously by the mainstream media.


    Thats the tail biting snake at work. With obeying the dogma that it's an untouchable subject you serve the system, even to the point that the socalled "new right" distances itself from those "evil racists". But the "new right" will change exactly nothing, they make themselves superfluous with that, while deceiving those who dont look closely and think that they're going to do something about the problem, which they will not. And then you end up with Muslims marching for "their" Britain in EDL rallies.
    I wouldn't say the new right will change absolutely nothing. For instance if I am not mistaken, Denmark had a comparatively strict immigration policy for the last few years while it was under a right leaning government. Now that the left are back in power the gates have been opened again.
    So the right can do something. However, if a national government was seen to be adopting a racist policy they would fairly soon find the EU bringing a legal case against them to force them to reverse those policies.

    Within the EU, even elected governments are no longer sovereign have to be careful how they thread.

    It's just stupid to believe that you can be a "politically correct anti-mass immigration" supporter. It's just not politically correct, regardless of how you present it. Even the EDL is labelled "racist" and "far right", despite that is has more racial others than native Britons, who on top wave pro-Israel flags.
    It is ok to be labeled racist by the far left because the bulk of the electorate don't listen to them anyway. It is not however ok to admit that you are indeed racist (that is if you wish to retain any influence at all).

    There is no room for idealism in politics. All politicians say one thing and do another. Did you see the Sarkozy's election rally last week? He started every line of his speech with "If you love France.." Of course it was all nonsense, cynically calculated to blunt any progress the New right might make against his campaign. The French people will probably fall for it again of course as they have done in the past. That is how politics operates. You can't expect to re-invent the wheel. Any politician who wants to be successful has to learn to play the game the way it has always been played.

    With obeying the dogma, you only castrate yourself, and those who stand in for their convictions.
    As I said, politics and political commentary is not about revealing ones true convictions to the public. That way only leads to a marginalization (and that is true no matter who you are).

    For instance, how popular would Sarkosy be if he came out and said "well we intend to flood France with Islamic immigrants so that the business owners have people to employ and you the electorate won't get any say in the matter whatsoever" He wouldn't be too popular! He certainly wouldn't be president of France.

    Political success is about maximizing ones influence to the greatest degree possible.That is done by packaging ones rhetoric so that it is as compelling as possible to the broad mass of people. As a politician (or as anyone who would seek influence over others) what you say and what you really think can rarely if ever be the same thing.
    Close observation may result in feelings of horror, wonder and awe at world you find yourself inhabiting.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,446
    Thanked in
    645 Posts
    Yes, unfortunately, you are right with that.

    Though that also means that we have no means whatsoever to change the status quo, ie the impending doom for our race. We'll be wiped off the face of the earth without even any significant resistance in the not so distant future.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  8. #18
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    The Horned God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, June 30th, 2017 @ 08:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Irish
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    2,247
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Though that also means that we have no means whatsoever to change the status quo, ie the impending doom for our race. We'll be wiped off the face of the earth without even any significant resistance in the not so distant future.
    It makes my blood boil to think that the present generation of politicians seems quite willing to hand on a Europe to the next generation that they themselves would not want to be born into. That however seems to be the case.

    Atm I'm watching Holland. The Netherlands is the canary in the coal mine. As one of the most liberal states in the History of the world it is far advanced along the road of cultural extinction through mass immigration. However, in one ray of light last year Gert Wilders was tried but acquitted of hate speech for pointing that out.

    So at least it seems these issues can still openly be openly discussed without fear of legal sanctions. It's just to bad the Dutch electorate still haven't seen the need to give Wilders enough political power to actually do anything.

    They better not wait too much longer though, because as he says himself "it 5 minutes to midnight". Within a couple of decades (3 at the most) there will be so many Muslim children in Holland that the ethnic Dutch will be doomed to lose their majority and with it their democratic right to choose the style of government in what was once their own country.

    You may have seen this video before, but it's very pertinent. As I say Holland is set to become the test case for how mass-Islamisation will be confronted/contained - or not, as the case may be.

    Deporting Millions Of Muslims May Be Necessary - Geert Wilders

    I know Wilders is not the most popular figure on these boards for a variety of reasons but you cannot take away from him the fact that he risked jail by coming out and saying the kinds of things he did.
    Close observation may result in feelings of horror, wonder and awe at world you find yourself inhabiting.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Schönenburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 9th, 2017 @ 06:24 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Ancestry
    Swedish/French/Swiss
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Progressive Elitism
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    77
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    It's not a question of trusting him. I don't recommend you trust anyone, frankly. It's just a matter of listening to his arguments and if you find one you like, noting it down for future use.
    Correct. I was not speaking in a literal, person-to-person sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    I don't see how you "pacify" anti-immigrant opinion by pointing out that the immigrants are set to become the majority in 2 generations.
    I tend to look at it as pacifying many rightists because it presents an artificial dichotomy, an imported neo-"american" political dichotomy. The left side is "race blind happy rainbow nation" left-moralism and multi culti. The "right" side is "race blind happy rainbow nation" fox news neocon-moralism.

    So its either a) go along with the population replacement program happily, or b) go along with replacement grudgingly, hoping that the new arrivals are "legal" and "assimilated". But both sides agree that no one must resist replacement. This false dichotomy can be viewed as a pacifying tactic.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    Race-blind assimilation is impossible with Muslims because they reject it. That should be obvious to almost everyone at this point. Steyn is certainly aware of that.
    Yes. But he also remains a race blind pro-assimilationist liberal couching his retoric in culture, not race. That is why he doesn't like moslems, because they cannot assimilate into his mocha brown Starbucks utopia. That is why he written exactly one single expressly anti-immigration article during all these years. Or at least what I have found.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    He expressly states that westernizing Muslims is not the answer to anything because what happens with westernized Muslims (he takes 20th century Turkey as an example) is that when they adopt western birth rates they remove themselves as a demographic factor in about 2 or 3 generations, leaving the traditional Islamist Muslims to take over. Steyn points to this process as the main reason for the disappearance of Kemal Atatürks western leaning Turkey.
    Yes, Islam always returns as soon as secularist pressure lets up. And that is why democracy only works in the arab world via stern dictatorship. Because there is no "moderate" Islam. But that is not our problem now. Our problem is that moslems are here, in ever expanding numbers. It would be cruel to deny moslems their natural identity and behavior. We do not want to see Europe turned into a Kemalist dictatorship. No moslems - no Islam to worry about.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    So you can't accuse Steyn of not being up front. Some of his commentary is illuminating even to me.
    I have previously acknowledged that he makes accurate points about Islam. I am not from the "Islam a non-factor" crowd. I know very well how dangerous and regressive Islam is to the human psyche. My point was that he never gives the reader any conclusions:

    Quote Originally Posted by Average Steyn reader
    "Ok, so Islam is a threat to our western/white/euro way of life ... and so we/society should do ...?"
    Steyn doesn't say.

    And he can't. If he told us he would be booted off the air. Steyn is a long time MSM mainstay for a reason. He's obviously playing the game well from a system financial POV. That is why he is stuck in a sort of holding pattern of ironizing and joking about the absurdity of it all. He has his niche. He's basically travelling all over the world telling westerners that they are doomed. And maybe there is a place for that. Different people are obviously at different stages of awakening.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    I think he's just describing the future as he sees it. What each individual chooses to do with the information is up to them. I think Styen provided some robust arguments against mass immigration and he ends the discussion by stating that if a society needs mass immigration it means that there is something amiss with that society.
    Maybe. I personally can't recall any articles where Steyn says anything concrete against mass immigration. He's mostly critical against islam, PC and multi-culti, not immigration. He spends half the time describing how weak and worthless white westerners are, without ever drawing any substantive conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    If he had made his case much more strongly I don't think it would have been aired. He said that mass immigration points to a sick society. How much more can he get away with saying? As soon as he makes the issue about race he will be excluded from most public discussions.
    Agreed, see previous answer above. But your quote speaks a bit to my point. Steyn is pro-immigration and anti-white in a clever and roundabout manner: it's the old "if we only had 10 babies per family like in the middle ages we wouldn't need the mass immigration". He's making a couched argument for Starbucks neoliberalism that says everything has to keep expanding infinitely, more people, bigger cities, more money... until the middle class is wiped out. But we are europeans. We are K-selected. We don't breed like rabbits.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Horned God
    Of course I agree, but there are certain things you can't say if you want your views to be published in the national press. Making allusions to things like "homeland" or ethnic survival will just get you pigeon holed as a racist who can be safely ignored and excluded from any and all discussions.
    Well, that goes more to the question of how to handle the mainstream paradigm. My opinion is that one should move the MSM discourse very slightly in your direction. You move just enough to shock them, but still remain respectable and well, spoken. You're not trying to win the media over, but the public. That is why they will call you "populist". Remember, they want you to be "Hollywood Nazis" with shaved heads and red armbands. One must not give them that.

    In this age of information and propaganda, the dynamics of rhetoric translates into real power. You need to have the courage to shock just a little bit, enough to move the conversation in your favour. Modern liberal society works by breaking established taboos. I believe that the solution is to apply a bit of logical Aikido, to use the destructive elements of liberalisation against the MSM to break their own holy taboos. That way, one regains the initiative. If one instead tried to compromise to the establishment by watering down the message, you return the power of rhetoric back to the MSM, and you lose. In my opinion this second mechanism is a marker for recognizing possible involvement of chosenites in modern right wing counter movements. They will always try to infiltrate and water down the rhetoric.

    This is why I think Whitaker-style techniques are quite positive and useful if properly adapted to suit our European context and sensibilities. It needs to be adapted because while the whole white/anti-white has it's points, at the same time it is also limited for us, since it is more or less American/colonial and does not work here in Europe. We are Germanic ethnostates. Of course we are white, but this is Europe, not the US, which means that we are distinct subracial peoples and tribes, not just white. Ordinary Europeans will find the US rhetoric about whites a bit vulgar and tasteless, because we already take our whiteness for given since this is our ancestral continent. We simply have more specific definitions of ourselves than that.
    "Att motverka antigermanismen genom att värna germanska folk, traditioner och ideal handlar inte bara om grundläggande mänskliga rättigheter. Det handlar i slutändan om att rädda mänskligheten."

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Schönenburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 9th, 2017 @ 06:24 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Ancestry
    Swedish/French/Swiss
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Progressive Elitism
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    77
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post

    Thats the tail biting snake at work. With obeying the dogma that it's an untouchable subject you serve the system, even to the point that the socalled "new right" distances itself from those "evil racists". But the "new right" will change exactly nothing, they make themselves superfluous with that, while deceiving those who dont look closely and think that they're going to do something about the problem, which they will not. And then you end up with Muslims marching for "their" Britain in EDL rallies.

    It's just stupid to believe that you can be a "politically correct anti-mass immigration" supporter. It's just not politically correct, regardless of how you present it. Even the EDL is labelled "racist" and "far right", despite that is has more racial others than native Britons, who on top wave pro-Israel flags.

    With obeying the dogma, you only castrate yourself, and those who stand in for their convictions.

    This is very well put. I would just add that there is increasing speculation that the global elites might be turning against moslems, because they are so obviously unable to assimilate, which means that they have become a bigger threat than expected against the globalist low IQ Starbucks mocha nation. I am still questioning what to think about that, but their natural islamic segregation could have some good sides if one were to think about possible future journeys back home etc...
    "Att motverka antigermanismen genom att värna germanska folk, traditioner och ideal handlar inte bara om grundläggande mänskliga rättigheter. Det handlar i slutändan om att rädda mänskligheten."

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The End of the World: closer than we think?
    By Beornulf in forum Strategic Intelligence
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Sunday, February 17th, 2008, 09:06 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •