Saturday, 18 July 2015

The Existential Crisis of Europe

The Existential Crisis of Europe

I’ve been trying to get started on this blog for some while now, but it’s been hard to know exactly how to get a purchase on it.  The main problem is that the mindset of most British people has been so corrupted that if you so much as mention the word ‘immigration’ you will instantly be branded ‘xenophobic’.  Or if you suggest that picking up Africans floating a few miles off Libya and ferrying them to the European mainland where they will be housed and fed might not be the most sensible thing to do, you are clearly a racist who wants to see them all dead.

Well I’ve got to the point now where I’m beginning not to care about what the opinion shepherds want us to believe or what other people think about such things, because their name calling has ceased to have any meaning, rather like the boy who cried ‘Wolf!’ and then got ignored.

The seed crystals of news which have caused the condensation of these thoughts in my mind have come over recently from the Grauniad and the Telegraph.  I used to be a Grauniad leftie from before the beginning of time until some vaguely unspecified date about a year or three ago when I began to realise that I didn’t actually agree with them any more.  In fact I began to realise that they were often found to be spouting dangerously biased and irrational nonsense.

Take the recent Danish election, in which the anti-immigration Danish People’s Party made significant gains and now holds the balance of power.

Beyond the facts of the election result itself, I would draw people's attention to the way the Grauniad has covered these results. To save you time I have lifted a series of quotes from their coverage and copied them below. They are clearly trying to control the narrative for their own ends rather than report in an unbiased manner. 

Words such as 'populist' 'seductive' and 'divisive' pepper the text, and you don't need a qualification in Neuro-Linguistic programming for it to be obvious that the Grauniad is doing its best to diss the Danish People's Party. I love the way they attack the vote as relying heavily on over 60s.  What should we make of the fact that 57% of their voters were under 60? Now that I am over 60 it is obvious to me that there is a repository of wisdom and stability in our older population which should be drawn on. Until the Cult of Youth took over, the wisdom of age was respected. Now it is sneered at because it could be the last bulwark against the multi-culti insanity which the elites are trying to impose on us.

Democracy is great isn't it? Except when the people make the 'wrong decision' of course, and need to be corrected. **** off Grauniad and respect a sovereign nation and its people's choices.

'Soft-spoken and plausible' 'populist tide' ' Whatever people may say about the clean-cut, politically savvy Thulesen Dahl and his *divisive* anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-Brussels stance, he is no Nigel Farage.' [WTF is that supposed to mean?] 'Others suspect a more destructive agenda.' ' it seems clear the DPP surge fed off fears about the “enemy within” symbolised by February’s deadly attacks in Copenhagen by a *lone* Islamist extremist.' [Emphasis mine]  (When it's a muslim, it's a 'lone gunman', but when, as in Charleston, SC, it was a 'lone' white man, we see a massive psychological attack on blaming all white people and their culture.  Yeah, I noticed the inconsistency.)  'Coincidentally or not, 43% of DPP voters were older than 60.' 'It was a seductive campaign narrative that pulled rival parties, including Thorning-Schmidt’s Social Democrats, to the right while denying them a clearly separate ideological identity.' So now the DPP is controlling other people's ideological identity? I thought that's what the EU had been trying to do for several decades!  This is trash propaganda of the slimiest sort.

Firstly this is undisguised opinion in what should be a disinterested and objective news report.  Obviously the major issues and future ramifications need to be mentioned, but this is heavily slanted, fear mongering propaganda.

The Grauniad is known for its pro-immigration position, and this is what it is all about.  Those nasty racist Danish people want to put a stop to it, and the Grauniad wants it to continue.  Very much.  Very, very, very much indeed.

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and consider the possibility that many on the Left genuinely believed that full scale multi-culturalism would be a good idea and work.  They had of course never tried such a mass experiment under controlled conditions, but they thought it would be a good idea.  For some reason or other that is now lost in the memory hole of time.

When it became clear a number of years ago that this whole thing wasn’t working (and Cameron, Merkel and others said this), not only was nothing done to reverse the trajectory, but in recent times the directives from the EU have if anything pressed to increase the numbers of immigrants.  As long ago as 2001 the UN predicted that the EU would need over 100,000,000 immigrants to replace population.  State policies and tax breaks for families could easily improve the indigenous European birth rate so one has to ask why is there this confluence with the continued political pressure for immigration?
I have seen a link which mentioned a figure of 159,000,000 immigrants being needed by 2025, but can’t seem to find that precise one at the moment.

There is much discussion of aging demographics and the need to maintain tax revenues etc., but almost no mention of how to stimulate the birth rate of indigenous Europeans, which is surely the best long term solution, a simple reversal of the cause of our demographic decline. 

Clearly the cheap labour is a significant part of it.  We have a couple of million floating unemployed in Britain, and yet open door economic migration continues as normal business.  The EU Schengen Zone obviously has led to this to a great extent, and so we have to mention the Kalergi plan.   

I’ll have to refer to a link here, or you can just google for Kalergi.
Quote from Kalergi “The Eurasian-Negroid race tomorrow, outwardly similar to the ancient Egyptian, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of personalities.

A quote from Kalergi’s ‘Practical Idealism’
“The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews [due to the actions taken by the French Revolution]”

I didn’t write any of that, Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi did.

This has become well known about in truther circles over the last few years.  The mainstream is very reluctant to discuss Kalergi, and won’t talk about his plan.  I actually have a friend who is a life long Labour Party member who threatened to walk out on me if I tried to discuss it.  Really!  Why?  She wouldn't say.   

Frankly, I wouldn’t take it seriously but for one rather glaring connection that is too big to ignore.  Both Chancellor Merkel and EU President Van Rompuy have both been awarded the ‘Charlemagne Prize’ for services to the pan European ideal, of which Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi was the first recipient in 1950.

And what Kalergi suggested seems to now be taking place.  Join the dots my friends.

I would offer in supportive evidence the complete abdication of any right to rule by the current crop of EU leaders (with one or two exceptions) in the face of the current invasion of Europe currently taking place.  The first duty of our government is to defend the realm.  This is clearly not being done.  The dominant leadership from Brussels is continuing to try to force this down the throats of what is left of an indigenous European population with economic arguments on the one hand and moral on the other. 

Let’s put the cheap labour behind us and get onto the ‘universal ethics’ which require Europe to sacrifice itself on the altar of African need, shall we. 

Allowing ingress of hostiles is treason.      

‘Social Justice Warriors’ don’t reason or even argue with you, all they do is sling abuse.  It’s predictable, ‘Racist’ ‘Bigot’, 'Xenophobe', for simply wanting your own people to remain the main group in their own country.  Apparently the multi-culti Cultural Marxist agenda is now so advanced that they think they can silence anyone with a few well chosen weaponised words of abuse.  But it has reached the point where we don’t care as I suggested above.

The woman who wrote the following piece for the Telegraph is a bit more savvy about all this than the Grauniad, but she hasn’t quite got there yet. Fix their countries for them?  That would be racist colonialism, wouldn’t it?  This piece written before the Tunisian massacre of European tourists.

One of the main problems with all this is that most Europeans haven’t any experience of sub-Saharan Africa, and many of those who do have only seen it through the eyes of tourism, protected in western standard hotels and shepherded around in tour buses and safari groups.  I spent a substantial part of my childhood in West Africa and saw this all through different eyes.  I have little doubt that while the cities in Africa may have some of the trappings of modern civilisation these days, the average peasant will still be living in the manner that they did in the fifties or sixties, whether that be the 1950s or the 1850s, or earlier.

But I hear you say that if the conditions are so primitive, then shouldn’t we be doing all we can to ameliorate them?  Let’s be clear about this.  There are over a billion native population in Africa, nearly twice that of Europe, and their continent is much larger, with immense natural resources, not to mention a climate more conducive to plant growth in much of its area.  Oh, and the almost limitless sunshine which could be used for electrical generation and thereby economic growth.  Firstly we should consider the simple matter of space, housing, employment and so forth.  Clearly the continuous arrival of unlimited numbers of people of foreign origin must have some impact on these.

But it is the actual people that we should consider.  I hear people from the likes of the Green Party saying ‘Give them time and they will become just like us’.  Really?  Does the growth of Islam in Europe support this supposition?  It seems rather the opposite to me.

We have to accept that the average sub-Saharan African has lived a life of what we would consider unremitting hardship, but that is from a European perspective.  Until recent times most of the European peoples toiled and sweated to survive in a similar manner, with added winters unknown in Africa, to boot.  Our advanced technical civilisation has removed us from that basic level of survival and, frankly, made us soft.

When Europeans see pictures of Africans in mud huts their altruistic hearts go out to them and want to help them.  But how should this be done?  Countless billions of pounds, euros and dollars have disappeared into black holes of corruption over the decades, fuelling on the one hand Presidential palaces, and on the other endless wars.  European guilt at the colonial era is a large part of this, but how long must we go on paying?  We hear more about colonial exploitation now than we have ever done.  I am not unaware of the massive debts with which the World Bank and their likes have entrapped the nations of the continent, but this should not be laid at the door of the common European peoples.

The so-called ‘moral’ argument for allowing endless streams of Africans into our historical homelands relies largely on the colonial past, which ended in the aftermath of the Second World War, and on altruistic feelings of wanting to help them.  Firstly I would suggest that the aid budgets and loans have done little to benefit the common African, and secondly that simply allowing them to come to Europe and find a future here is not a viable option, either for them or us, despite the assertions of bankers and eurocrats that we actually need this feral population.

Pictures of the migrant boat people I have seen do not actually look like African peasants in fact, but more like semi-westernised city dwellers.  I see leather jackets, jeans and sunglasses.  But they doubtless still have the tenacity of their peasant ancestors.

It is fairly obvious to me that word has got round amongst the urban poor of Africa that Europe has gone soft and is letting them in.  And not just in Africa, but pretty much throughout the Third World. 

The likes of Angela Merkel only encourage this.  I have just seen news coming in that Hungary, one of the few European nations to offer resistance to the no borders and unlimited migration policy, has been whipped into line by the EU commissars.  But the Hungarian people are not happy with this.

This is based on a fundamental misrepresentation of the African migrants.  They are put to us by the media as poor suffering refugees, fleeing a continent riven by war and strife.  Well, I won’t argue with the riven with war and strife, but these are wars of their own making.  You don’t see women and children on the boats coming across the Med, it’s all young men.  They are clearly economic migrants.  (A junior Tory minister dared suggest this a few days ago, and was roundly attacked ~ by immigrants.)

It brings to mind a story I read about four or five years ago when I was going through a motivational and personal development phase.  I was reading a lot of stuff about how getting ahead in life required effort and vision, and the implications of one story rather disturbed me.  It was about how a certain African man had not had the opportunities in his native Kenya that he sought for his economic advancement, so he walked, hitch hiked and smuggled himself north until he found his way to Europe and then with hard work and diligence made a life for himself and was successful.  All very well when it is one person alone, but I fear that many millions of Africans have heard such stories and are planning to do the same.  In fact, one of the main points of the story was put over that you have to go where the opportunities are, you won’t make a million in the desert.  True ~ but do these people have the right to impose themselves on us?  I would suggest that the answer is no, or at least that we have an equal right to defend our ancestral lands from invaders.  The lack of obvious firearms does not prevent them from being invaders.

The price of Globalisation is that hot spots of economic activity attract people to them.  But the downsides are many.  The indigenous populations of the hot spots, such as Europe and the United States, become marginalised in their own lands.  (And before you complain about Americans of Australians not being indigenous, ask yourself how the Native Americans or Australian Original people will do if their countries are taken over by Islam and Sharia law, or is swamped out by African or mestizo populations?  Less well than at present I would suggest.)

The incoming populations do not become like the indigenous.  At first they may have been compliant with the local culture, but as time has gone on and they have become stronger in numbers, they have become more assertive.  The demographic time bomb of what is now potentially millions of feral Africans settling in Europe, in addition to the already burgeoning Middle Eastern Islamic population, is something that the likes of Angela Merkel seem not to understand, other than to want to promote it.  Remember Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi?  This is exactly what he described, and claimed was necessary.

The incoming African boat people will not become like us.  They see this as an opportunity.  Europe, which always in the past was an unattainable Elysium, has become soft and faces an existential crisis as to its identity and future.

From an evolutionary survival adaptation perspective the African behaviour is perfectly understandable.  Organisms seek environments in which they can prosper.  This happens all the way from the amoeba to human beings.  But all organisms need to defend their territories, and the leaders of Europe have abdicated that responsibility for this.

The Social Justice Warrior crowd have now built a collective zeitgeist in which the ideas of ‘One People’ and ‘No Borders’ have become dominant memes.  But they do this with no recourse to anything other than claimed morality.  Why should you have all the benefits of European civilisation just because you were born there?  Why should the poor of the Third World not be entitled to all those benefits as well?  Your borders are artificial constructs etc etc etc

Not long ago a friend stated on social media that (he believed) it was ‘immoral’ to maintain European borders against migrants who wished to come here.  He asserted this as if it were a proven fact that brooked no disagreement.  This chap lives in a rural part of southern England where he probably doesn’t see a non-European face from one week to the next.  He, like so many of the liberal classes of the west, is not yet impacted by the social and demographic impacts of many millions of people arriving here to take perceived opportunities.  Unlike those of us in large cities.

And yet it is admitted from time to time that the Third World migrants harbour in their midst murderers, drug traffickers, rapists and all manner of undesirables.  Their identities and criminal records are uncheckable by European border authorities.  A recent incident involved some twenty five boat people being murdered by their fellow travellers because they were Christians.  Not that I imagine they were wonderful people, but if that is how a boat load of immigrants treat others of their people simply for being Christians, then how might we expect them to treat white European people?  It was recently admitted that 100% of rapes in Oslo are committed by people of non-Norwegian ancestry ~ immigrants.  Obviously some immigrants are more responsible than others, but the kind of unrestricted migration we are seeing at present across the Med from Africa is unlikely to be dominated by the kind of responsible, educated immigrant that the Labour party went to so much effort to present to us before the election.  I would venture that there are few brain surgeons or information technology experts amongst the African boat people.

The leadership of the West has abdicated responsibility.  Either they have lost the plot entirely or have been co-opted by interests who seek to destroy the West in the manner proposed by Count Kalergi.

Every nation and people have the right to control their borders and maintain dominance in their own ancestral lands.  This is a fundamental fact which has been ceaselessly attacked, undermined, argued against and sneered at increasingly over the last few decades.  And yet all other ethnic groups, all other countries and nations are permitted to maintain their borders, control the movements of immigrants into their territories and define themselves by their ethnicity.  Except those peoples of white European ancestry.

One of my favourite episodes from ancient literature is from the Bhagavad Gita.  On the night before the great Battle of Kuruksetra, Arjuna asks Krishna why it is necessary to face his relative the Kauravas in battle, and if there is any alternative.  In essence, Krishna replies ‘You would rather let them kill you and your entire family then?’

Christian morality is fine when you live in an homogeneous culture where all share the high trust values.  But allowing in millions of people from different cultures that don’t believe in these values is suicide.  They see our high trust societies as a soft touch to be exploited, taken over and turned to their values.  If you think that muslims and Africans will become like us rather than adhere to their own ancestral values, then I wish you luck with that when you are stoned to death for having views on women’s rights or freedom of speech.  I have heard recently that in mosques muslims often talk about ‘When the time comes’. 

And what time might that be I wonder?  Anyone who imagines that an aggressive belief system which has conquered some fifty or so countries by the sword and which makes no secret of the fact that it seeks to ‘convert’ (coerce) the rest of the world to its ‘peaceful’ ways is living in a fantasy land.  The body count of the jihad over the centuries stands at some 300 million or so I understand.  Lovely practices such as 'striking off the fingertips', or simple beheading, of unbelievers are recommended in the koran as methods whereby they can achieve mastery.

The leadership and peoples of the West face a severe existential challenge.  Do we continue with a universalist ethics which insists we give away all that our ancestors achieved because someone has found a vulnerable point in our ethics that they can exploit like a Trojan horse virus, or do we face up to the fact that we have to protect ourselves from being swamped out by barbarians?  It happened to Byzantium and all the remains of the Roman Empire.  Charles Martel prevented it in 732 at Poitiers.  The good people of Austria saw it face to face in 1683 when the muslim hordes besieged the gates of Vienna.

Do we let our identity and culture fold because we have had a manipulative mind game played against us to make us feel guilty of our historical success, or do we follow the suggestion of Krishna, and seek to secure a future for ourselves, our European peoples and children?

You decide.