The ORIGINAL gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters. (As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)
Monday, November 30, 2015
From Matt Bracken: "Tet, Take Two: Islam’s 2016 European Offensive."
"As we roll into the New Year, we are witnessing the prelude to the culmination of a titanic struggle between three great actors. Three great social forces are now set in motion for a 2016 showdown and collision that will, in historical terms, be on par with the First and Second World Wars. Two of these great social forces are currently allied in a de facto coalition against the third. They have forged an unwritten agreement to jointly murder the weakest of the three forces while it is in their combined power to do so. One of these two social forces would be content to share totalitarian control over large swaths of the globe with the other remaining social force. One of these social forces will never be satisfied until it achieves complete domination of the entire planet. So what are these three great social forces? They are Islam, international socialism, and nationalism."
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Bloody good read!
This analysis is fatally flawed.
Nationalism is no longer one of the great driving social forces of the world. In every nation which has the claim to be a major national power, the tools of global information exchange ensure that socially influential people have the possibility of regular contact with people in other nations, some friendly to their nation or to them personally. This is true even of China, not because the CCP desires it but because it isn't possible to build significant national power in the modern world without allowing it. Nationalism still exists, of course, but it is for the most part a studied sham...and the Gates of Vienna is as good an example of this as exists. It is an extraordinarily international community devoted to so-called 'nationalism'.
The real target of socialism (international or not) and Islam isn't nationalism, but individualism. It is true that individuals usually define themselves as belonging to some nation or other which they consider best serves their own interests...but this is tempered by the recognition that other individuals may belong to a different nation which better serves the interests of those other individuals, and the individualist accepts that as a legitimate individual choice. A genuine nationalist would not. When you believe that nations exist to serve the purposes of individuals, you are categorically different from someone who believes that individuals exist to serve their nation.
There is an understandable tendency for intellectually lazy people to think that individualism cannot be a "social" force. But individualism is all about the relationship between the individual and society just as much as socialism is. And societies based on the theory that society exists to serve the ends of individuals is so much better at producing really effective and efficient social cooperation and economic prosperity that there is no serious competition from societies based on the theory that individuals exist to serve social ends. Individualism is simply a better theory for usefully predicting how humans will actually act in various social settings, and thus devising social institutions which will draw forth the most desirable behavior from humanity.
What we are seeing is the beginning of a final conflict between societies based on the theory that society exists to serve the individuals who create and sustain it and societies based on the theory that individuals exist to serve the societies which create and sustain them. The latter have gained great headway and dominance through intellectually lazy appeals to emotion and superficially glib rhetoric. They have managed to win control of truly staggering resources (overwhelmingly produced by individualist societies or at least elements of society which operated on individualist principles such as the free market enterprise). But now they're at the point where individualists will cease to support them, because they are openly making war on the individual.
It is fair to say that the revival of nations which revered the individual will play some role in this conflict. But it is individualism which has breathed new life into those nations, not nationalism.
Dutchman 6 .But were not The "Founding Father's" - American Nationalists. Behind enemy lines Ct.
Civil war is almost certainly coming to Europe and none of us can stop it. So, how can we profit from it?
This article did a poor job of keeping me in that " I won't be the one to kill the Muslim Baby" camp we were all so theoretically engaged in a few weeks ago...
In war, the name of the game is to stay alive. Baby or no baby.
I agree, Anon. Although the baby can't really be Muslim until he or she has been brainwashed. Maybe abducting the Muslim baby and raising it with a chance at a prosperous life would be a better option.
Chiu Chungling. I wouldn't say that essay was fatally flawed. It just presents an overview of coming events that will in all probability come to pass. Maybe the term Nationalism, which seems to be a sticking point with you, could have been better termed as Patriotism?
Nationalism is the promotion of one's country over another, as you have pointed out, whereas patriotism is the love of one's country as being the root of the Patriot's existence, and for all who share those sentiments.
There is a huge gap between the thinking of the Corporate Globalist/Collectivist who sees himself as part of a scheme that has no borders and so therefore no bond to any country and the Patriot, who like the true native, is bound to his country through faith, family and love for country because of what it once was and not because of what it has become.
A Patriot holds dear that which has been proven to work over centuries while the Collectivist marches to a drum and to an ideal without substance that is at best fleeting and at worst impossible to achieve due to the Collectivist's inability to identify and to then rectify their ongoing mistakes that has cost untold millions their lives.
As for Islam, that most parasitic of ideologies, I would venture to suggest, that without the ongoing assistance Islam has and is receiving at the hands of the Collectivists it will cease to exert any further influence in its own right. So the obvious target at this time must be the complete overthrow of the corporate collective and their lackeys to which that article points.
Hmm...yes, patriotism would be a better word for it. The patriot loves his country not merely because it is his own but because he has devoted his life to bettering it. Where a nationalist says "my country, right or wrong", the patriot "my country because it is right."
To the patriot, his country is a gift from former generations which he holds in trust to pass on to his posterity.
The problem is that even the "right wing" in this country would still argue that our country is "right" in the illegal, unconstitutional wars we've wage in the ME for the last decade plus.
Those people self-identify as Patriots, but are actually Nationalists. What it really boils down to is that all these labels are completely incorrect. One is either a statist/collectivist or an individualists. True individualists are outnumbered at least 10 to one in my admittedly anecdotal experience.
Post a Comment