“The Reactionary Mind – Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump“ by Corey Robin.

“The men and women killed on September 11 were not citizens of a democracy; they were earners, and rewards would be distributed accordingly. Virtually no one-not even the commentators and politicians who denounced the Feinberg calculus for other reasons-criticised this aspect of his decision.” (p.218)

Thankfully I did not receive any new books for Christmas this year (2018) which is great, considering that I still haven’t read the ones I received last year. 

After all of my political outbursts and writings there could hardly be a better title to end my “Things To Read“ section with in 2018 than Corey Robin’s “The Reactionary Mind- Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump.“

I have a deep admiration for good writers displaying broad vocabulary usage, especially those who engage in extensive harvesting of information.

This is its own virtuosity for sure and I find it very impressive.

Characters like Robin would probably not be particularly gobsmacked by my own writings but see it as a source of opinions in a bundle of many.

That being said; Corey’s work is an analogue data-base of other people’s opinions presented to those of us who are not academics or to those who are hoping to climb that mountain.

He presents his collection of conservative thinkers brilliantly and convincingly argues his point.

It is particularly illuminating for someone like myself to read it; in fact I would go so far as to call it mandatory reading for anyone on the right spectrum of politics.

What really stood out to me and what I ended up highlighting in the book were sections regarding economics.

I was stunned to read quotes from Hobbes who would have greeted a 1984 super-state with open arms. His definition of free-will is something that I’ve come to consistently ridicule pointing out to my relatives when reading, talking or hearing about abusive behaviour: “well according to Hobbes this is free-will in action if you choose to be a victim!”

I was equally mortified by Edmund Burke’s view on labour but certainly saw in his writings the justification for wage-slavery in today’s modern world.

It is simply impossible for an individual to condemn chained-slavery in one sentence only to proclaim that one endorses freedom and liberty while endorsing Burke. There is no such thing.

Edmund Burke had no respect for the individual or humanity as quoted in Robin’s book. A terrifying individual whose theories should be held up as a horror-example of what one should fight against.

Likewise, I was angered when reading quotes from Ayn Rand who came across as a delusional fraud, the antichrist incarnate, without any concern for her fellow humans at all. Robin demonstrated this by comparing quotes from her with quotes from Hitler. They aligned perfectly.   

Thank God for Adam Smith who came across as the only sensible thinker in regards to labour.

View this post on Instagram

#adamsmith for the win! What #edmundburke is quoted as saying & defending in "The Reactionary Mind" is literally #slavery 😑 Not good. Here is a good quote from #Smith ❤️ "He describes that minimum as either a subsistence wage to procure the worker's survival or a family wage enabling not only to maintain and reproduce itself but also to advance itself. Not only must wages provide "the necessities and conveniences of life"; what constitutes those necessities and conveniences will depend upon the overall wealth of a society." 👍🏻 #economics #reading #ideas #politics #society #thereactionarymind #coreyrobin #trade #money #finance #labor #workers #wages #nations #peace

A post shared by The Commander In Chief (Berit) (@thecommanderinchief1) on

Obviously it all made me think about my own efforts in regards to my art and inspired me to initiate a new art-concept for this year (2019) named: “The Value of Labour.“ 

I will not go into great detail in describing this particular art-project until the end of the year.

“When labor becomes the norm, in both senses of the term, culture does not stand a chance.” (p.163)

I highlighted several quotes in the book that were of great interest, but I will not quote them all here since it dawned upon me during Christmas that I have a tendency to write rather large book-reviews and quote what I read to such an extent that it all becomes a bit too much.

Ultimately I want people to read the books that I mention but I also want to share information since we live in a time where people don’t seem to take reading seriously!

I have to say that it feels strange to read a book written in proper American. Rather than writing labour, the text goes for labor instead. The same can be said for the usage of the letter z or c vs. s. After having gotten used to the more French way of writing English words, it feels like I’m reading simplified English.

What I find troubling about “The Reactionary Mind“ is that Corey Robin is portraying Democrats and liberals as inherently peaceful and “lame” which couldn’t be further from the truth, he also fails in addressing current political movements such as: transgenderism, LGBTQ, 3rd wave feminism, racism, censorship and iconoclasm, and declarations of total war written by members of the political left, etc;

His criticism and portrayal of Trump also falls into the category of “Orange man bad,“ with the by now familiar name-calling. He adds to this by quoting “The Art Of The Deal,“ a book ghost written by Tony Schwartz.

It is difficult to find anything illuminating in regards to Trump’s character, barring the support of his children and friends of the family. After all of the negative articles that I’ve read (and openly ridiculed here on my blog) I’ve only come across three sources in regards to Trump’s personality that can be seen as plausible or informative. One is the video of Tony Schwartz in Oxford, another is the video interview with one of the women alleging that they had an affair, the other is a long article in The New Yorker written about his tv-show “The Apprentice.” What these three have in common is that they align and paint the sort of picture that would be credible considering Trump’s vast wealth and business accomplishments; all other critics are namely repeating the same words over and over without ever giving any reasons for why they are doing so…

That being said it is unlikely that anyone will care much for what Schwartz have to say for himself since Trump’s larger than life personality and star eclipses that of a journalist hired to write about another man’s accomplishments…

Trump’s magnitude is so immense that it is impossible to come across a media outlet not mentioning him (the publishing houses clearly see it as their mission to use any outlet to influence potential voters), impossible to come across anyone in the music industry who does not have an official opinion broadcasted on their social media (regardless of their size and influence), his very presence has driven his political adversaries to nothing but visible madness; it is not even possible to go to a random coffee-house in Cheltenham without overhearing the neighbouring table talk about Trump’s latest Tweets.

Such is his fame and such is his influence.  

He has made everyone reveal themselves and their true colours on an international scale.

Those who want: border security, a crack-down on gang-warfare, private guns, religion, jobs and a future for their families love the man and are his fans; those who hate him want: no borders, no jobs, no police, no private guns, no religion, and no children.

Yet those who oppose him do not really see this since all they chant is: “Orange man bad,“ they are fighting an unjust system presided over by a bigot – in their opinion.

His most devout fans burnt their Nike gear to show their contempt for “flag-disrespecter“ Colin Kaepernick. Meanwhile the political activism on the left increasingly resembles persecution with doxing and physical assaults a staple; it brings to mind “give us the man and we’ll find the crime.“

A most celebrated and respected investigative journalist referred to the spectacle by saying: “this is political war.“

It is also worth noting that liberals were terrified of a potential “military junta“ in the White House when Trump appointed retired Generals to certain positions. Once these characters were fired one by one, the very same people voiced their complaints, since they apparently wanted a military take-over if this take-over would stand opposed (even if just a little bit) to President Trump.

“… or, as the Kagans would later put it, “to intervene decisively in every critical region” of the world, “whether or not a visible threat exists there.” (p.213)

“… to ensure that no other power ever arose to challenge the United States and that no regional powers ever attained preeminence in their local theatres.” (p.214)

To conclude; 

There is a real danger of “state-worship“ both on the right and left side of politics. This is never in the interest of the people when contemplating the exploitative nature of the modern “state.“ There is also a danger of denial when people are clueless of past tensions between those who yearn for change and those who oppose this.

Right-wing people do have a tendency to greatly admire enforcement professions only to despise big-government and bureaucracy in the next sentence. I guess it is an admiration for being badass and for being patriotic. I certainly consider myself a fan of the military and others who keep us safe and know how to kick ass!

Ironically enough these enforcement professionals are in our times acting as agents of the very state that conservatives either loathe and/or doubt.

Those on the left side of politics meanwhile bemoans war-mongering from the right, while frequently calling for military interventions in the name of “saving humanity“ or “standing in solidarity“ with whomever. They greatly expand the state “for the greater good“ while simultaneously lamenting “power-abuse,“ “the patriarchy,“ and “hierarchies.“

It is immensely ironic that left-wing characters erect the very abuse time and time again that they criticise or see (whether legitimate or not) in already existing political structures. They do have a tendency of being very right in their analysis of what doesn’t work while failing spectacularly when enacting their remedy. Usually resulting in monumental losses in the millions. 

The use of language and grammar is an abuse of power in the mind of a true deconstructionist, yet the ideological children of these radical thinkers are the very ones who are forcing everyone in public academic settings to announce their pronouns and talk like fools.

On the other hand; conservatives regularly re-write and update their own history so that they will not be seen in an unflattering light by whatever modern standards. If you believed in maintaining the established order of your time and you lived in the American South, you would obviously have been pro-slavery, if you believed in maintaining the existing orders in Europe, you would obviously have been pro-Monarchy. If you believed in the captains of industry and this newly established elite you would have supported the suppression of workers, and so and so on.

Establishments and elites change.

I disagree with Corey Robin’s argument that violence is one of the pillars of the conservative mindset and would rather counter-argue that violence is at the heart of humanity as a whole.

Geneticists would obviously know more about the topic.

I take it as self-evident that most lust for power and that few would ever be able to resist the temptation of greatly expanding their spheres of influence if given the chance.

Inevitably this results in the infringement upon other people’s borders and rights to self-rule.

A right is only a right as long as humans decide to respect it, just like a law or a system is only operational as long as people decide to play along with it. The moment that people do not, it will simply cease to exist.

Political orders are living organisms which makes it ironic to be a conservative, unless ones definition of conservative aligns with mine; namely that conservatism means conserving any traces and tools of ones cultural heritage such as: texts, buildings, artefacts, music, practises, languages, etc; in addition to the protection of ones own population group from existential enemies both internal and external.

It would also make sense to include borders but this would not take into consideration our ancestors nomadic tendencies, which led them to move wherever they could find resources. Which grounds to be defended would be defined by the actual value to the tribe. This obviously includes farmland in these “modern“ times of ours.

Expansion due to necessity would also have to be included if concerned with the survival of ones population group, since mass evacuations are sometimes a necessity. You have to be flexible and willing to re-locate if your current territory becomes inhabitable.

Borders follow the tribe.

Traditionalism on the other hand does in my opinion mean that you consciously re-enact past patterns of behaviour, which is something that a great deal of conservatives would not be interested in doing.

In this day and age conservatism is largely seen as a financial model which means that nothing is ever really seen as worth “conserving“ if it gets in the way of the sanctity of “the free market,“ socially there may be a little sprinkle of religion, but this is largely absent from the Nations of Europe.

Lately I’ve been thinking that globalism must appeal to those who see all humans as replaceable cogs in the industrial like state system. If 10 Swedes die tomorrow it makes no difference since 10 Nigerians can be imported to take their place. It is however interesting to note that the argument is never really reversed because then it becomes imperialistic and racist. Overpopulation in Africa can be solved by Europeans not having any kids, in the eyes of a globalist it makes no difference at all if China all of a sudden is swapped demographically with India. We are all just cogs in the machine. This is the only way I can think of to explain their thinking.

It is worth noting however that if celestial beings create humans to worship them you cannot simply exchange them for other creatures while expecting a continuation of praise. This will probably come as a rude awakening to many in the years to come.

When reading this book it is informative to see that conservative critics do have a tendency historically to lament the inertia of the establishment while both fearing and admiring the vitality of revolutionaries.

Like biblical prophets they warn of a looming danger, but a danger nonetheless that seems inevitable.

“What is important is not what freedom I personally would like to exercise but what freedom some person may need in order to do things beneficial to society; this freedom we can assure to the unknown person only by giving it to all.” Hayek (p.159)

 

When You Lose Your Headquarter While Fighting A Conventional Enemy….

Lately I’ve been thinking about the political establishment’s fixation on Russia and China. My reason for this is that I imagine that it must be reassuring and good to know that your Nation is in relatively good shape if you are called to fight a foreign State actor elsewhere…

What inspired these thoughts was a short YouTube video I watched from Paul Joseph-Watson where he spoke about the fall of Paris. This was before the yellow-West protests.

There seem to be no willingness to sort out internal turbulence from a great number of political establishments in Europe, who seem more concerned with distracting their enforcement officials with petty, feel-good, political-correctness issues, rather than nipping things in the bud. In addition the mainstream media are in on the hoax as well veiling Europe in a false wrapping of safety where critics are portrayed as merely ill-informed, or as Russian spies, or as racists, or as weird conspiracy theorists.

As it is though, the con-act is unravelling since the instability has grown to such an extent that the de-stabilisation effort can no longer be hidden.

Leaders such as Kurz and Salvini are lone voices of reason displaying the sort of leadership that is necessary in a situation such as this; the only issue is that their actions are contained and would have been more powerful and efficient if they were executed upon the continent as a whole.

The reason as to why I bring up this issue once again is that if the threat and the concerns regarding China and Russia are as severe as Defence officials would want to us to believe, then I dare say that it must be quite “problematic” that we already find ourselves in compromised territorial situations within our own Nation States…

In the case of conventional, State actor-warfare, it could very well might be that our professional fighters are sent out to confront a traditional enemy, while their home territory (that has already been compromised) fall to imported and/or native insurgents; the insurgents might even strike a deal with the more conventional enemies so that our own fighters find themselves locked-in and surrounded.

It will require quite the genius to first defeat the Chinese and the Russians, only to head back home to another battlefield. In fact it very well might be that there will be no home to come back to at all.

Not to mention that the main battle could easily be sabotaged if your headquarter falls.

This means that regardless of how one chooses to think and regardless of what might be on top of one’s priority list, the destabilisation of Europe and of America cannot be brushed under the carpet any longer.

It is a bi-partisan issue that transcends all and everything. It simply has to deal with the survival of our tribes and cultures.

The fact that we have to wait in anticipation to see whether elections grant us the leadership required to tackle our current continental crisis is nothing but tragic.

If a continental decision could be made it would be in everyone’s interest, after all it must compromise NATO’s efficiency and operational ability that so many of its member Nations finds themselves in such an unfortunate internal predicament.

And if it doesn’t compromise the preparations that these countries are currently undertaking in preparation for any potential future conventional war efforts, then it probably will once the fighting starts.

If you have no control now, then what makes you think that you will under such circumstances as described above; especially since our militaries are professional, which means that “life-will-go-on-as-usual” for the vast majority of the population, who at this point in time stand face to face with threats that our current enforcement establishments have either no desire to solve or even worse: no ability to solve.

In other words; even if your main concerns are Russia and China it cannot be ignored that the current political situation in the U.S.A. & Europe poses a fundamental threat to any future victories.

You will need your country to be there for you so that you can fight for your country; yet what makes you think that it will if you gaze upon the current internal landscape?

 

The Heated Topic Of Immigration Wordlwide & What Sovereignty Actually Means.

There is a proposal on the table that apparently will be voted on and discussed later this month, concerning making it illegal to be a critic of mass-migration, and I guess its effects, which are notable (historically speaking). This is to be done in order to initialize and/or continue with mass migration into Europe without any criticism. I wonder if this makes it illegal to review and talk about History books and/or whether or not it will also make it illegal to write that Norway was converted by the sword, which was the case, only that it was the sword of Christianity. History gives us the key to who we are and what sort of challenges we might face as nations/individuals and how to tackle these …  Here is the video:

http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/criticism-of-immigration-will-be-banned-in-europe/

Ok … now over to what I was actually going to write about:

I was quite surprised when I read an article a while back about anti-immigration riots in South Africa. It was of interest since it depicted Africans demonstrating against other Africans entering into their territory. I linked to the article here on my site and here I’ve found a video about anti-immigration sentiments in Israel.

Once again it illustrates how we all tackle a lot of the same issues regardless of where we live. With our current technology it makes it increasingly easier to compare cultures and how different population groups react to the same challenges.

What is of particular interest in the video is how the two Israeli women start shouting at one another since they disagree about whether or not they should take in the migrants.

Attitudes and behaviours that Westerners seem to regard as outdated are well and alive in other parts of the world, which you quickly realise when reading about the persecution of Christians.

Enforcing certain values and a clear identity will not happened quietly as anything that falls on the outside of the spectrum has to be removed or silenced. This paints a brutal picture that feels foreign in today’s “liberated” Western world of “Thou What Thou Wilt.” It makes sense to say that “when you go to Rome you do as the Romans” and unless you do have an unhealthy fixation on, let’s say, Islam; it makes sense to say that if you live in a Muslim majority country, then once again “you do as the Romans.”

You are a guest; which is why you’ll have to pay your respects or re-locate.

When observing how “respecting other’s sovereignty” plays out in practise though it actually means that you quietly stand by as genuine minorities (such as LGBTQ characters in Russia) are treated poorly, while political dissenters are sent into camps  (China), while it also means silently supporting terrifying human-rights violations (Saudi Arabia) all in the name of respecting “sovereignty” and a claim to practise ones “identity.”

Even in Western societies that are officially trying to be “bring-your-own-beer-countries”; they do want to enforce something, which is a normless society. This means that if you actually do stand for what has traditionally been the identity of your territory, well then you must be a bad-guy. Having “no-identity” becomes the identity, in this strange, awkward case. There is no culture, there is no heritage, there is no history, there is no nothing. Only a territory that you define upon your arrival. 

Even though I’ve been writing about how important it is to respect a Nations sovereignty and identity, I have to admit that in this I’ve failed on a small-scale by sending words of comfort out to persecuted Christians who in some cases are breaking the rules of the territory that they find themselves in by possessing a Bible and/or being open about their beliefs.

I’m also failing at “bringing my own beer” into identity-less Western territories as I’ve always integrated. This though becomes an issue if you live in a territory where “a deconstruction” is taking place. It means that you are aligned with the old (what the territory used to be) rather than the new (what the territory is becoming).

This might then oddly enough transform you into a dissenter by you successfully integrating into an established identity that is being killed on purpose by whatever establishment…..

Another example of sovereignty violation is this: if environmental pollutants are to be fought against effectively it also means being “rude,” since boots on the ground will be necessary in Africa and Asia to crack down on the worst “climate-offenders;” so there goes your peace and respect for sovereignty!

I wonder sometimes if  outspoken celebrities and spokespeople truly understand the natural conclusion of what they are stating and supporting….If you are an actual eco-warrior, well then you can’t respect anyone’s Sovereignty!

Pollution is really and truly a global problem, and we in the West are not the worst offenders.

I’m mentioning this to showcase how difficult  it can be to have certain stated principles, only to realise that things might not be as easy as previously thought…

It might also be worth mentioning that global corporations can in some ways operate like “one world governments” for the simple reason that they are their own thing completely and are everywhere, regardless of Nation or Continent.

Their influence is greater than anything else I’m sure.

National Sovereignty is consistently disrespected by world leaders who initiate sanctions and/or declare war against the leadership of other Nations, who they deem unfit to rule. Hence, no respect for sovereignty, nor the enforcement of National Identity.

The reason for this is probably due to how painful it actually is to witness Nation-State enforcement of territorial identity and also (in most cases I’m guessing) how unprofitable it is if Nation States break away from unions where so-and-so is/are the decision maker/s and/or big player/s.

Back to the migration issue; people are protective of their environment because they don’t want to lose out on their resources, which is one of the reasons as to why people have trough the ages “fortified their positions.” Something that is illegal in today’s Western Europe, unless you are a member of the establishment…..

Previous enforcement of ones right to be in a territory is also why we have distinct population groups, because group such and such was not erased by being absorbed into someone else’s “thing.” Hence in order to have a Nation and secure the continuation of said Nation you actually have to exclude, which a lot of people instinctively do; but this is never going to look pretty, especially not on a large-scale, which is what I’m talking about in this entry.

This of course makes an “open world” scary since it is a dangerous illusion; nobody is really interested in being squeezed out, not even those who are initially “open and inclusive,” when all of a sudden they wake up to find out that they have become a minority and that their claim to whatever territory and influence is null and void.

Their definition of their territory that they once upon a time wanted to generously share with others, have slipped and doesn’t include them any more. They simply lost it.

(It might be an idea to note that citizenship also becomes bizarre in “an open world” since citizenship is merely a piece of paper in this case. You territory belongs to everyone, and anyone can be of your territory. The same can be said of legislation tackling digital abuse and scams online. What you get is digital-global-anarchy since a criminal operation from one Nation abusing the member of another cannot really be prosecuted. Which governing body is supposed to police human interactions over the global internet?)

There are those who clearly do not see the arrivals of large hordes of other population groups as problematic. This is precisely why the arguing becomes so ugly, because those who end up being exposed to these transformations have a tendency of being very loud and extremely upset when their home-areas change suddenly. Especially if trust breaks down and inter-racial and/or inter-ethnic violence (the targeting of those who are not part of your in-group) becomes a thing.

The same can be noted now with anti-immigration sentiments here on the continent, that would appear to be reserved for Africans and Arabs primarily, but are also extended to other European Nationalities as well, in addition to heated arguments between individuals who look just the same (due to being members of the same Nation), because of disagreements over whether or not EurAbia or EurAfrica ought to be forcefully created, regardless of the human cost in the process.

I think it can be argued with certainty that trying to unite Europeans was a challenge great enough, just like trying to unite Africa is a monumental challenge due to inter-Racial diversity.

Now it can be witnessed that it is all falling apart here in “Europe,” since it was simply “too much, too quickly, too soon.” Rather than admitting that this has all been a spectacular political failure (unless you want chaos) the political establishment in Brussels appear hellbent on forcing their vision on everyone else, regardless of whether or not people actually want this in great numbers…

Things are already getting ugly since the survival of one “ideological vision” in this case, means the destruction of the other.

The good news is: that this is how humans behave, regardless of where they might be….

Here is one case of internal dissent in Germany and a proposed solution by a French academic:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201811101069694506-german-military-plot-spoiled/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/01/the-german-military-has-a-neo-nazi-problem-extremism-right-wing-terrorism/

http://freewestmedia.com/2017/11/18/french-academic-proposes-muslim-apartheid-state-in-france/

The Downward Spiral Of Curiosity & Honesty.

This evening I decided to re-read my 1st blog book “Thoughts” which can be purchased right here: My Book.

It is of interest that typos found their way into the final product even when I read through the blog entries several times, in addition to using a grammar tool. It is my experience so far that the tech we have at our disposal hasn’t caught up yet. I often see that mistakes make their way into my final published entries and I see this with articles published by mainstream major media outlets as well.

I’ve decided to let my mistakes stand though as a testimony to my own humanity and fallibility. Hopefully I’ll publish something typo-free next time around with better grammar. In my own defence: English is my 4th language! 😮

The reason as to why I decided to read through my book this evening was to double-check and police myself. At the end of last year I started freaking out a bit when I received a spooky comment on one of my entries regarding radical Islam in Europe. In addition to this I re-lived the sort of social-media strangeness that I first experienced back in 2015. Wondering if I had caught the attention of someone dangerous I set a number of my entries to Private, but when things calmed down I later went on to publish them as a book. After looking at them again now I don’t necessarily see any controversy, unless one chooses to be in denial over how things are playing out politically for the various Nations of Europe.

It is of interest that my 1st political entry published in early 2016 was written from a completely secularist perspective, certainly aligned with the Europe of today – if one is opposed to imported extremism that is.

Fast forward to November the 19th in the same year and I’m openly contemplating whether it was a grave mistake to destroy Christianity within our continent as it was evidently starting to dawn on me that our values are not competitive.

It becomes obvious when looking at the entries that I’m describing a decaying social construct and a governing elite mistrusted by their own people due to a widening gap between those who lead and those who follow…

When observing small acts of kindness and respect from the current leadership in the U.S.A. towards their American voters (something that is never really reported on in the mainstream media press) you see an effort in place to ensure that “the people” (regardless of how abstract the definition of “the people” is) don’t feel forgotten by those who govern!

President Donald J. Trump shaking the hand of every single Navy Graduate at the graduation ceremony for the U.S. Naval Academy class of 2018; represents great leadership since these type of acts make those who work for you feel valued. Those who were there will probably never forget it; it is also suitable that one should look those in the eye that one might send out into war one day. It is the lack of such acts, just to pick an example, that can potentially create distance, resentment, and eventually loathing, towards those who are in charge….

It is important to make people feel that they are being taken seriously and that they are at least listened to.

In my entries it is obvious that the gap between reality and the fiction sold by the political-correctness brigade just keeps on widening, and that the people are aware and notice, fuelling underneath the build up of total fury.

I hardly mention U.S. politics in my book at all, since this was obviously not on my radar at the time.

Seeing the blog entries now gives me the chills since what I describe is a crumbling Europe, where certain demographic groups have been planted into every single European Nation, which surely looks like a deliberate act of long-term de-stabilization. 

I address the symptoms of continental illness, but without rudeness, I make the distinction between the moderate and the extreme. That being said; the fixation that naturally ensues when one knows what the truth is and pursue this truth further, is not a healthy endeavour. I’m amazed I haven’t had an aneurysm yet, because heavens knows: the current predicament of Europe makes me sick!

The reason as to why people become entangled in this obsession, is because people know that their concerns are legitimate and right. They keep on going and going and going and going, not necessarily out of ill will but because they know that they are speaking the truth and that matters will only get worse, much worse, if nothing gets done.

The irony of course is that something can only be done by those who have the power to do so, the question is whether there is a willingness, and that is where the division between “the people” and those who decide kicks in, not to forget that an unwillingness to act will probably give birth to competing entities that bypass established institutions….

An incredulous political vision is being pursued in Europe today; and I hope that the emergence of bold, conservative leaders will give us a much-needed shift before a peaceful re-setting will be out of reach.

The wider the gap gets, the more troubling is our future.

 

Give Peace A Chance….

Today I saw this on Twitter & re-tweeted it…

I couldn’t agree more with Miss Mia.

This was my reply though to one of my followers who commented…

I also agree with this re-tweet:

The problem is that there are plenty of people out there who are literally on a non-stop crusade. They want to tear down everything that people like myself hold dear.

One thing is to have imported suicide bombers; it is something else entirely to have suicide-legislators/culture-warriors/politicians/foot-soldiers, who look like you, have the same heritage as you, but hate what ought to be looked after and protected.

These people hate everything what we’ve been lucky to inherit, especially military victories, since it is mean to win!

These characters don’t want to be criticised either when they launch their attacks! If you respond to their anti-European, anti-American hate-campaigns, then somehow you end up being the bad guy; it will especially look odd to those who are in the unknown and who don’t bother to watch or read what ticked you off in the first place. In fact it might look as if though you’re the angry “problematic” one.

What might surprise those who read my blog entries regularly is that I actually never initiate political discussions unless I’m discussing things within the family. It seems kind of deranged to throw out political statements when you bump into people you hardly know … One of the first rules I learnt when I was little, was that you don’t discuss politics and religion during dinner parties, as this might create unwanted tension which is the last thing you should opt for if people are gathering to enjoy themselves … What I find astonishing is that everyone else I seem to bump into automatically just blurt out left-wing political statements all the time, as if though these type of statements aren’t anchored in a political spectrum, but just fall into the category of “common sense” and “profound indisputable wisdom.”

I therefore find myself quite often in the receiving end of all sorts of left-wing propaganda, and when I then finally try to get a word in, after patiently listening to a “post-modern-sermon,” which quite often includes vulgarities of such a nature that I should probably run off to a monastery to cleanse my soul and ears, the other party is left stunned. How on earth can any soul disagree with the wisdom of deconstructionists? How is it even possible?

Conservatives on the other hand talk about other matters, probably because they are not on a non-stop revolutionary crusade. Because of this you will not really know where they are politically and even when you find out that the person in question is not a red, there is a high probability that you will never quite figure out where on the right-spectrum they might be; unless they have a blog or an official social media profile.

Here are a couple of splendid arguments that I’ve had to endure listening to, since I am so polite that I actually let people preach to me … even when it is completely uncalled for … As a result my brain has now expanded to such an extent that it has literally smashed through my cranium….. Behold minions. I will now share this wisdom with you:

1-I’ve been presented with the argument that because there are problems with crime and gangs in America already then it doesn’t really matter if you get some Islamist attacks on top of all of that in addition … The logic goes something like this: if there are white-supremacist prison gangs in America, then it doesn’t really matter if a huge terrorist attack from Middle-Eastern men kill lots of people in one go since the white-supremacists (who are in prison) will apparently kill just as many – but over a prolonged period of time … the conclusion is therefore that US President Donald J. Trump is a massive threat since he should not target specific demographics with travel bans or heighten US border security since this somehow makes him racist … I guess the logic here is that if the authorities are looking for a criminal with red hair and freckles, then it is of utmost importance to officially spy on, and target ANY demographic, even sub-Saharan Africans, so as to avoid, offending gingers………..

2-A blood relative of mine, (who is the only extended family member I have who actually looks a lot like me), is a proper intellectual who advocates that Norway needs more migration! Norwegians are not getting enough kids, so we have to engage in replacement migration to salvage our welfare-state! This bright relative of mine (no pun intended actually) even believes that there are no biological differences between population groups since differences are only the result of culture …The problem with my relative is that the information that she has studied and internalised is extremely outdated. She remains strong in the faith however….

These are just a couple of enlightening examples. As I wrote in a blog entry after the election over in the U.S. of A.; I was apparently some kind of a bad guy since I wasn’t openly crying all over social media but officially celebrating since the candidate I supported had won! Nobody even cared to ask me why I didn’t support Mrs.Clinton. In fact I’ve never been asked that question by any of my friends…

Me liking anti-invasion, anti-Islamification statements from protective European politicians and patriotic groups on Facebook also cost me some acquaintances, who just mysteriously vanished … these were people who were pro-mass-migration posting “refugees welcome” posts. They didn’t bother asking me any questions either … Outspoken people on the opposite spectrum, love to believe that they are virtuous. That what they support is common sense. This is the impression that I have. And since they are the nice ones they certainly do not want to have anything to do with those who are mean!

I would probably have kept myself to a more centered, neutral position, if it wasn’t for the fact that these type of characters are constantly supporting, formulating, promoting, not to forget, enacting ideas that are downright dangerous. Nor do they try to be discreet even! There are no safe-zones for those who don’t want to listen to self-righteous virtue-signalling.

In fact, this is what I am asking myself:

  1. What is the point of practising for months and months, or dedicating years of one’s life to master a technique, that will enable you to keep parts of our cultural heritage alive, when we have fellow country men and women all over the Western world, who are at war with all of it? At what point will classical music be censored?
  2. What is the point of creating new art if you run the risk of being dismissed as politically incorrect?
  3. What is the point of thinking at all if you will automatically be guilty of thought-crime unless you think and express yourself within a set, restricted, politically correct frame?
  4. Should those who seek to destroy our shared and individual heritage, in addition to our Nations be left unchallenged?
  5. And what is the point of saying that you love your younger relatives if all you seek to do is to make their future increasingly unstable by supporting ideas that will make them targets simply because of the colour of their skin or their faith?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if we don’t care about our books, buildings, artworks, music and founding documents, then nobody else will!

Who will ever respect cultures that don’t even respect themselves?

  

Having A Raison D’être & An End Game – The Impression One Can Get.

When reading about the Iraq war last year I was stunned to see the willingness to sacrifice the integrity of Europe on the altar of momentary territorial access needed in order to get into Iraq.

“Plan Of Attack” by Bob Woodward.

“Decision Points” by George W. Bush.

I was further mystified by the fact that 4-star Army General (ret.) Colin Powell came across as the one lone voice of reason, since he tried to raise awareness of tribalism and ethnic diversity in the targeted area.

The reading certainly gave me the impression that humans are simply being seen as replaceable cogs in the machinery by the establishment.

Culture and ethnicity simply doesn’t matter, it is all about momentary victory, without any overarching solid narrative selling a clearly defined End Game, that will be reached by many separate actions all serving the same underlying objective.

This is a startling realisation.

When reading “The Art Of War” I was surprised about what sort of advice it contained. Prolonged warfare with no end in sight is depicted as one of the worst projects that a Nation can ever engage in. A group that engages in warfare also have to ensure that they have access to an efficient supply line, taking advantage of whatever resources the group can get their hands on as they expand into a territory. A war effort should be swift and precise, without too much meddling from sovereigns located far away. The people who are on the ground need to be able to do what is necessary to reach their goal in a completely mobilised way, to the extent that this is possible.

All of this certainly made me question the sort of warfare that people my age have grown accustomed to. All of our Nations’ war efforts seem concentrated in “alien territories,” fighting and training “aliens” that might turn on the West later, and all of our Nations’ major war efforts seemingly drag out for ever…

No proper end game that logically makes sense is ever presented to the public and when getting an insight into the world of those who run these things, it doesn’t really seem like these characters know what the deal is either (unless a battle ground is simply needed in order to train soldiers and test new equipment).

Warriors & Citizens – American Views of Our Military edited by Kori Schake & Jim Mattis.

A parallel can be drawn to hacker activists, who don’t seem too concerned with allies. They’ll attack an enemy of the West one day only to target Western political and military structures the next, potentially jeopardising the integrity and safety of a Nation State or its military operations.

When reading about community organisers you see this pattern of behaviour once again.  A lot of left-wing activism simply cancels itself out, since the only common denominator seems to be emotionalism. Due to this you’ll get contradicting agitation and advocacy that will leave someone like myself slightly confused, as there is no End Game in sight anywhere.

If you look at Islamic agitation in Europe it is very easy to understand what their End Game and overarching goal is. They engage in demographic expansionism into Europe, which gradually gives them a political advantage. Wealthy Muslim power-players buy themselves into Western Corporations which gives them cultural influence and leverage. Street-level Muslims carve out their own territories and then defend these. Mosques are erected further cementing a claim to a specific territory boosting confidence, while a romanticized fantasy of Islamic Imperialism, appealing to people’s sense of identity and innate penchant for ancestry-worship, is promoted. Of course, as always, not all. But you don’t need every member of a specific group to behave in this particular fashion for it to have its desired effect. My impression of European Islamification is that there is a long-term vision, coupled with a willingness to commit to certain behaviours, in order to eventually reach a clearly defined outcome: Nation States that become compatible in their policies and in their cultures with the Muslim faith, preferably paving the way for a new “Golden-Age.” Of course it is of importance to point out the ethnic and racial diversity within Islam, and that there are numerous conflicting denominations within the faith as well. As an example: we can now clearly observe, imported tribal disagreements and feuds, in Europe, in addition to all of our own inter-ethnic issues that we had from before….

Inter-ethnic dissonance is very prevalent in Africa; which is generally referred to as the most diverse continent on the surface of the earth.

So what can be said of the West? What is our End Game? What can be observed and what conclusions can be drawn? 

What would make sense, instinctively,  would be to have common ancestry as the glue holding Europe together. Race has become way more inclusive than what it used to be, since we now largely see Race as something observable, while ethnic groups give us what has become our European Nation States, with its specific cultures and characteristics.  Back in the day these used to be chopped up into various tribes that probably displayed a lot of similar traits to one another, hence our generalisation regarding population groups contained within the boundaries of the modern Nation State: an extended family sharing common ancestry and a similar distribution of genetic traits on average.

It would make sense if our Nation States in Europe concerned themselves with the protection of our shared and individual cultural heritage, doing everything to ensure the survival and majority status of white children (and mixed whites) in the only territory that actually belongs a 100% to whites, protecting our continent’s borders and integrity.

A strong unified Europe and more broadly speaking, a strong unified West with the more multi-racial configurations found within territories conquered by whites, would in theory make sense.

Is this an End Game for what is collectively known as The West though? No.

This would be a racist objective. It would insinuate that Ethnic-Europeans have a natural claim to a specific territory and that conquest is a legitimate way to establish a Nation, which is what a white presence in all other territories other than Europe is a result of. (To my knowledge … It certainly looks that way when observing strange geographic settlements by Whites and the presence of dark-skinned indigenous groups).

The prevalent mythos championed in the West is this:

  1. that all other groups are minorities, even if Europe looks very small when compared to other continents, and we are outnumbered globally speaking.
  2. That the magic soil theory is truth, meaning that you’ll automatically become  Swedish by simply breathing the air in Sweden.
  3. That all human beings are born equal due to a blank slate, and that genetics simply don’t exist.
  4. That talking about genetics and genuine diversity is dangerous because that will instantly turn you into Hitler and result in a new Holocaust.
  5. That it makes sense to celebrate white ethnic groups becoming minorities, after years of civil-rights battles in the U.S.A. to ensure equal opportunity regardless of skin colour, and after years of Whites trying to do good towards previously marginalised and abused non-white minority groups within their domains. Not to forget: the constant focus on the challenges faced by so-called (and genuine) minorities within traditionally White-majority constructs. None of this paints minority-status in an appealing light … yet we should do everything in our power to lay the groundwork for our own marginalisation…. which is particularly interesting when reading about the merciless brutality in other parts of the world perpetrated by non-white majorities…
  6. That previous white expansionism will just be forgotten, since Whites have decided to “play nice,” which means that we no longer have any enemies and don’t really need any borders….
  7. That only white ethnic groups can be guilty of racism and imperialistic activity.
  8. That white ethnic groups are not under any circumstance “indigenous” and that there will at no point be any need to give any white demographic the status of “protected group.”
  9. That race and/or ethnicity is only real and only counts if/when dealing with “indigenous people,” who can under no circumstance be white. These “indigenous” groups are also the only ones entitled to certain territories that have to be protected in order to ensure their survival.
  10. That charity is only needed in the 3rd world as it is probably your own fault if you are poor and hungry in the superior, egalitarian, socialist inspired constructs that make up the Western World.
  11. That you have to import workers from Africa and The Middle East, rather than employing individuals from territories closer to your own, or within your own continent.
  12. That mixing on a massive scale is always peaceful and not the result of violent demographic change or militant conquest.
  13. That re-writing history and engaging in gas-lighting on a National and/or Continental level is perfectly alright in order to salvage vanity projects initiated by international organisations, that might look good on paper and in theory; until inserting the human factor into the equation actually implementing the idea.

Ok. So this doesn’t look too promising. Then what about Christianity? This is multi-racial, multiethnic and global. It is way more inclusive and has been used as a unifying factor in Europe before…

The West has continuously acted as an enemy to Christian groups in the Middle East, facilitating genocidal persecution of genuine Christian minority tribes. Western governments not only promote the build-down of Christianity within Europe and all other territories under White influence, they actively side with Nations and regimes known for violent Christian persecution.

What about human-rights, enlightenment ideas, world peace and the “human race”?

Western governments have repeatedly sided with regimes guilty of outrageous human rights abuses, making themselves guilty of gross hypocrisy since human rights and the protection of humanity as a whole has become the main narrative and general raison d’être of Western groups.

Portraying oneself as a defender of the human race also becomes tricky as you cannot possible go out there and claim that population group A needs more protection and privileges than population group B as this would be racist and undermine universal rights. And how on earth can you even say population group A and B when race/ethnicity isn’t even real? You cannot say that religious group A is more guilty of persecution than religious group B, because why would religious group B be more righteous or in need of more protection than the other? Are you a bigot or what?

Who are you to say that Terrorists don’t have rights or don’t have a point, when you claim to be a defender of all of humanity? And how on earth do you even define a “War on Terror” or “Terrorists”? Any person or group could fall into this category when nothing is specified.

These kind of points can be spinned indefinitely putting The West in a situation where none of its actions can be seen as righteous and/or legitimate.

It opens up the door for a potential legal, moral and PR nightmare where The West and its natural inhabitants never win.

It also puts Western Nation states in a situation where an enemy cannot be clearly defined, at least not in public, due to important exotic alliances and potential diplomatic disasters. By relying on exotic alliances for abstract military operations, the West paints  itself into a corner, where they cannot kick out subversive elements within their own nations if these stem from their good “friends and allies.”

The West is forced into a position where it cannot really look after the interests of its own inhabitants, nor enforce the heritage and integrity of itself.

Not to forget that The West is put into an incredibly awkward situation when Western leaders cannot clearly formulate anything, if interested in maintaining good international relationships.

This results in cringe worthy narratives that leaves all of those who don’t just parrot our “modern shared values” confused and puzzled. What are we all about really? Does anyone know?

What about Capitalism then? A support for this must surely be a constant factor from The Americans at least? 

No. Think again. The U.S.A. is willing to tolerate oppressive communist regimes that in the long run pose a threat to the American experiment and their global influence, as long as the U.S.A. can gain from such an alliance in the short run.

So what is The End Game of The West? 

Strangely and worryingly enough there doesn’t seem to be one……(but I might be very wrong, after all, who knows what goes on behind the scenes…).

At best it can be argued that there are forces within The West championing stability trough whatever means by expanding the police state and surveillance of their own citizens. This though is worked against by leaders who don’t want to acknowledge the effects of demographic change. In addition it facilitates the very form of governance that Western Nations are outspokenly against, not to forget that the identity destruction currently happening in The Western world work against any conservation efforts intended to protect our cultural and ethnic inheritance, while simultaneously compromising stability and security; in short, all of it compromises the survival of those people who occupy the territories that we collectively refer to as The West.