rebuilding European demographics

Let’s assume that eventually the anti-immigration argument succeeds and the flood of immigrants into the West is stopped. OK, it seems very unlikely but let’s just assume it anyway. What is the next step?

Western countries like Britain, France, the United States and Sweden are already in a mess. Clearly it’s not going to be enough merely to stop immigration. Those countries need to be restored to functionality and even more importantly they need to be restored to the status of civilised nations. For one thing that means the apparatus of totalitarianism that has been slowly built up over the past half century needs to be dismantled. I am assuming that what we in the anti-immigration camp want is for these nations to be restored to something like the state they were in in the 1950s before the process of de-civilisation got seriously underway.

So what would need to be done? There are many who would like to see the demographic balances of the 50s restored. It’s certainly an attractive idea but could it really be done? Bismarck famously said that politics is the art of the possible, and I’m not entirely sure that  a restoration of 1950s demographics falls within the range of the possible. Existing nationalist parties have had little success even though their policies are very much more moderate than this.

It seems to me that there are four options.

1 Mass deportations to forcible restore 1950s demographics.

2 Selective deportations to achieve a more favourable demographic balance.

3 Assimilation of existing immigrants.

4 Segregation.

Option 1 is almost certainly impossible and could in any case only be carried out by a government with such sweeping powers that it would have the potential to be more totalitarian than our current system.

Option 2 appeals to a lot of people who think our problems could be solved by expelling all members of a certain religion. The Spanish did this fairly successfully after the Reconquista in the late 15th century but they needed the Inquisition to make it work. A modern attempt would need something very similar to the Inquisition.

Enforcing deportations (or immigration bans) on religious lines is not simple. How exactly do you decide if someone actually belongs to the religion in question? Do you deport everyone who was born a Muslim? Or only practising Muslims? How do you define practising? If someone claims that they have abandoned their religion or converted to a different religion can you believe them? The Spanish (no doubt wisely) were not inclined to take people’s word for it that they had sincerely converted to Catholicism. It was the Inquisition’s job to make sure.

The Spanish Inquisition in fact was not particularly brutal or even particularly oppressive. Much of its evil reputation is due to the anti-Catholicism that dominated English intellectual life for so many centuries (Henry Kamen’s excellent book on the subject which I reviewed here is worth a read). But nonetheless it was certainly intrusive and I cannot imagine that a modern version is ever likely to be politically acceptable or even desirable.

http://anotherpoliticallyincorrectblog.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/the-spanish-inquisition-historical.html

We also need to ask ourselves if deporting people for their religious beliefs is a wise precedent to establish. It could just as easily be turned against adherents of other religions, especially Christianity. It’s worth remembering that our political establishment hates Christianity a lot more than it hates Islam. They’d be overjoyed to have the opportunity to ban Christian immigrants and to deport existing Christians.

On the whole any kind of large-scale deportation, whether selective or not, seems to me to be impractical and to involve very real potential dangers.

That brings us to Option 3, assimilation. This might be an unpopular thing to say but this is actually my least favoured option. For various reasons.

Firstly, it doesn’t work particularly well and it works least well with the very people who are most likely to be a social problem.

Secondly, you have to have a viable host culture for the immigrants to assimilate to. We no longer have that. Assimilation means embracing the core values of a culture and what are the core values of our civilisation? Mindless consumerism, greed, celebrity worship,  homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, promiscuity, pornography, transgender bathroom rights and feminism. Why would anyone want to assimilate to a death cult like modern western civilisation? Why would we want to encourage anyone to do so? Do we really need more crazy blue-haired feminist harpies?

Thirdly, I just don’t like the idea of assimilation. It means cutting oneself off from one’s history and cultural traditions. It means betraying one’s loyalties. Essentially it means becoming a rootless cosmopolitan and do we really need any more rootless cosmopolitans? It means you end up with a society with no actual culture (just a veneer of trash pop culture), no shared traditions, no shared history. You end up with a society that will be more and more inclined to embrace the very forces that have led us to ruin – liberal democracy, consumerism and capitalism. You end up with a society more likely to welcome totalitarianism and more likely to worship the state since they have nothing else of substance in which to believe. The descent into degeneracy will continue unchecked.

Option 4 is the one likely to provoke howls of outrage but some kind of segregation might well be the best solution for everyone. Something like the millet system in the Ottoman Empire, whereby different faiths can essentially live under their own laws and preserve their own cultures. This might seem like a very unattractive solution but it might be the best hope for preserving at least a remnant of European civilisation.

Advertisements

nationalism and what it means to me

Nationalism became very unfashionable indeed in the West in the postwar period although it certainly seems to be making a comeback now.
The problem we have to face though is – what exactly is nationalism? There has recently been much talk of white nationalism. This is a concept that I find rather puzzling. It seems to me to be so broad as to be essentially meaningless. What does white mean? Does it include Armenians? Does it include Jews? Does white mean caucasian? 
My impression is that when most white nationalists talk about whites they mean Europeans or those of European ancestry. Fair enough but personally it still seems too broad to me. I have nothing whatsoever against Portuguese, Bulgarians or Germans but I feel no great sense of connection to them. I know a bit about German history and culture but pretty much nothing about Portuguese or Bulgarian history and culture. 
To be meaningful nationalism has to involve some kind of emotional resonance. That (in my opinion) requires a shared language, history and culture. Polish nationalism and Danish nationalism make sense since both Poles and Danes have a shared language, history and culture. European nationalism makes no sense to me, plus it has unfortunate universalist connotations – it’s the kind of woolly-minded concept that gave Europe the nightmare of the EU. You can’t expect the Irish and the Lithuanians to feel any genuine solidarity. I’m sure they wish each other well but they have little in common and it’s quite reasonable for Lithuanians to be very concerned about the welfare of fellow Lithuanians and to be entirely uninterested in the welfare of the Irish.
In the United States the proposition nation idea was an attempt to create a different kind of nationalism. It would have worked if only they could have found a way to make sure that every single US citizen would agree with the same propositions, and that every one of their descendants would agree to it. Which is of course entirely impossible. You can’t base nationalism on ideas. Ideas go in and out of fashion. Nationalism has to be based on something much deeper and more lasting.
That leaves the US with a major problem and to some extent it’s a problem for countries like Canada and Australia as well – countries that had to create new nationalisms more or less from scratch. Australia appeared to be well on the way to doing this but several decades of cultural marxism has put paid to that.
I certainly regard myself as a nationalist, but not as a white nationalist no matter how broadly or how narrowly you want to define white nationalism. I’m an Australian nationalist. I have nothing but goodwill for other countries but they’re not my country and for me my country comes first. 
Since I believe that nationalism needs to be based on a common language, history and culture if logically follows that I believe that bringing in enormous numbers of immigrants who do not share that common language, history and culture will be disastrous. Nationalism requires borders. Large-scale immigration is the best and easiest way to destroy a nation. To me the race, ethnicity and religion of the immigrants is irrelevant. All large-scale immigration is ultimately disastrous if it weakens the bonds of language, history and culture.
To a liberal admitting to being a nationalist is tantamount to admitting to being a white supremacist Nazi. Which is of course utter nonsense. I’m a nationalist but
I’m entirely supportive of all other nationalists. I’m in favour of Sweden for the Swedes and Japan for the Japanese and Kenya for the Kenyans and Iran for the Iranians. I have absolutely nothing against any other race, ethnicity or religion. In my view having separate countries is the best way to encourage mutual respect. I like and respect and admire the Japanese but I think it’s better for everyone if the Japanese live in Japan and leave Australia to Australians. Fortunately the Japanese seem to be in total agreement with me on that point!
There are some further difficulties with nationalism. If I’m in favour of Swedish and Japanese and Australian nationalism shouldn’t I also be in favour of Scottish nationalism, and Catalonian nationalism? Those nationalisms are however in conflict with British nationalism and Spanish nationalism. Which nationalisms should take precedence? I haven’t found a solution to that dilemma but I console myself with the thought that nobody else seems to have found a solution either.

multiculturalism – how did we end up in this mess?

I’m sure everyone who is sceptical of the globalist/multicultural agenda has at some time or other pondered the question – how on earth did we end up in this mess? How on earth did western civilisation  become so suicidal? How did we get to the point of volunteering for our own cultural destruction?
I have my own thoughts on this subject, which I’ll undoubtedly address in a future post. For the moment I’m posting this link to an article by Ricardo Duchesne at the Council of European Canadians site. He offers a lengthy and detailed, and fairly persuasive, argument. It’s worth a read.

Racism is alive and well – among the Greens

Leftists have been telling us for years that racism is alive and well in Australia. It turns out they were right. A journalist on the notoriously left-wing Melbourne newspaper The Age has discovered a particularly obnoxious nest of such racists in the heart of Melbourne.
But these racists are not quite what the leftist media might have led you to believe they’d be. They’re not rednecks. They’re not working-class. They’re not Christians. They’re not evil conservatives. They’re middle-class, very wealthy, LGBTQwhatever-friendly, environmentally conscious, atheist, feminist and they vote solidly for the Greens. They live in inner-city Fitzroy where the local town hall is festooned with banners proclaiming “refugees are welcome here.” 
But they are racists. They don’t send their children to the local primary schools because the local primary schools are very diverse and multi-cultural. No, they send their children to primary schools much further afield – primary schools that are almost entirely white. It seems they don’t want their precious offspring to have to mix with non-whites.
The best part of the article from The Age is the comments section. It’s absolutely hilarious watching the mental contortions these hypocrites perform in their desperate efforts to argue that they’re not racist just because they want their kids to be safely segregated from contact with non-white kids.
The funniest comment of all is from the person who tries to argue that it’s not racism at all – he’s just terrified his kids might come into contact with some of those nasty scary people from the lower socioeconomic groups. Because poor people are so icky, aren’t they? Apparently they’re even ickier than non-white people!
There is truly no limit to leftist hypocrisy.
I was led to the subject matter for this post by a post at OzConservative.

Sweden “slamming shut” its borders?

So Sweden is “slamming shut” its borders against refugees. This is likely to be seen as a reason for celebration. A few moments’ thought suggests that the celebrations may be premature.
First of all let’s be clear about one thing. The Swedish government doesn’t give a damn about the Swedish people or Swedish civilisation or western civilisation in general. Their hostility to western civilisation is as strong as ever. This is not about saving Sweden. This is about saving the Swedish government.
The big threat to the established parties in western Europe is the recent rise of nationalist parties (usually labelled as far-right parties even though they are in fact all left-leaning parties). By pretending to have suddenly switched to an anti-immigration stance the ruling socialists hope to outflank and destroy the nationalist Sweden Democrats. They are counting on Swedish voters being stupid enough to fall for this and go back to supporting the established parties. They are almost certainly correct in their assessment of the stupidity of the Swedish voters. Once the Sweden Democrats are disposed of it will be back to business as usual.
In any case the “slamming shut” of the borders will almost certainly prove to be mostly window-dressing. It doesn’t matter. It makes no difference what governments do – what matters is appearances.
My prediction is that the ruling socialists will go on to win a landslide victory in the next election. The destruction of Sweden can then be resumed without interference from annoying critics.
I suspect we will see something very similar happen in France. Hollande will talk tough about declaring war on terror. The French will fall for it. Hollande will win the next presidential election easily and the Front National will be effectively removed as a threat to the established parties.
Never underestimate the cynicism ofd those who rule us, and never underestimate the gullibility of voters.

Lord Kinross’s The Ottoman Centuries

The Ottoman Empire endured for more than seven hundred years and at its peak embraced much of western Asia, the whole of North Africa and a very large chunk of eastern Europe. Lord Kinross’s 1977 history of the empire, The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, provides a magisterial survey of a fascinating subject that has many lessons in it for our modern world.
The Ottoman Turks established themselves in Anatolia at the end of the 13th century. By 1453 they had conquered the Byzantine Empire and captured Constantinople, thus finally bringing the story of the Roman Empire to a close. Unlike earlier Asiatic conquerors such as the Mongols the Ottomans were far from being a merely destructive force. In fact their intention was not so much to destroy the Byzantine Empire as to bring it to new heights of power and influence under new management. 
As the Ottomans swept over eastern Europe they were as often as not hailed by the Christian peasantry as liberators, and to a large extent the peasants were quite correct. Ottoman government was on the whole more efficient and more enlightened than the regimes it displaced. Eastern Europe and the Balkans had been torn by religious strife between Orthodox and Catholic Christians. The Ottoman sultans brought such strife to an end. On balance the Ottoman conquests were of great benefit to Orthodox Christianity.
The Ottoman Empire was a bold and surprisingly successful attempt to create a multi-ethnic multi-lingual multi-faith multi-cultural empire. It was not a partnership of equals. Moslems and Christians were not treated equally under the law. On the other hand Christians certainly enjoyed the protection of the law and the opportunities open to them were considerable. For the first few centuries of the Ottoman era it was the practice of the Sultans to recruit not just the bureaucracy and much of the army from the Christian populations, but to fill the highest offices of state with them. The empire was governed by men who were slaves of the Sultan but they were slaves who could aspire to actually running the empire. Being a slave of the Sultan’s Household was an opportunity rather than a disaster.
Of course it couldn’t last. The rise of European nationalism in the early 19th century doomed the Ottomans. What is remarkable is that it was still able to endure for another century. Empires that last for seven centuries can scarcely be dismissed as mere failures.
While multiculturalism has been a catastrophe for modern nation-states there have been at least moderately successful multicultural empires. It seems that any kind of multicultural society requires autocracy to make it work. It’s a policy that has to be enforced in a top-down manner and ironically only an autocracy can provide genuine protection for minorities. This certainly has worrying implications for those who believe that freedom and democracy are the magical solutions to the problems faced by minorities. 
Kinross approaches his subject in a generally even-handed way. He is able to find much to deplore in the Ottoman Empire but he finds even more to admire. He is also quite fair in stressing that the failures of the reforming sultans of the 19th century were largely due to the sheer impossibility of the task before them. The difficulty was to find a way to take the positive things that the West had to offer (such as technological advancement and education) whilst trying to avoid what the Sultans saw as the negatives (such as democracy), and to satisfy the demands of their Christian and other non-Turkish subjects while at the same time preserving the empire intact and maintaining its fundamentally Islamic character. It’s a balancing act that has proved very difficult for any Islamic state to bring off successfully. Kinross is even able to judge the notoriously reactionary Sultan Abdul Hamid II (who ruled from 1876 to 1909) quite fairly. Abdul Hamid was indeed a political reactionary but he was no fool and he saw quite clearly the need for rapid modernisation.
Kinross is able to make a complex history consistently entertaining and stimulating. Whatever one’s views on Islam it is difficult to read this book without feeling a good deal of admiration for men like Suleiman the Magnificent. A fascinating read. Highly recommended.

Hungary’s prime minister blasts multi-culturalism and liberalism

Sometimes it seems that all the news is bad news, but occasionally there is a glimmer of hope. Hungary’s prime minister has come out strongly against not just multi-culturalism but against liberalism in general. And in favour of Christianity and Christian values. It seems more and more likely that if western civilisation  is going to survive anywhere it’s going to survive in eastern Europe. Russia and Hungary both provide beacons of hope.

Here’s the link to more on Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban’s statement.