11 thoughts on ““We Cannot Carry the Responsibility for the Whole World””

1. What is the meaning of those “center-right” and “socially conservative” Christian parties if they too are a part of of the suicide cult? Let’s please stop harping about the “Left,” except if we include “Christian” and “Jewish” in it.

   The far leftist -atheist Christopher Hitchens was far more “Islamophobic” than any bishop of the Anglican-Episcopal church I’ve heard of since 1970. The leftist Mickey Kaus has written more about America’s Suicide-by-Migra than all the “conservative” GOP presidential candidates in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 –together. The socialist George Orwell himself had more common sense and understanding of race and culture, East and West, than all major British Conservative politicians in the last 60 years, again, together, except Enoch Powell.

   So let’s just have two main categories of political parties: Pro-Ethnocide of Whites and Sucide of Western Civilization, and Against Ethnocide and National Suicide. Contracted it’s Death parties and Life parties.

   To be clear, there isn’t a single major Life party in the West that I know of. There are the sub-rosa perhaps-Life parties like PVV and Front National, that might be counted fully if they took the risk of taking the full position against National Death, therefore risking even more persecution and electoral boycott than they do in their milquetoast present.

   But the parties just reflect the peoples. Most Westerners support the Suicide Cult, even if they call themselves “conservative.” And nothing will dissuade them except a major whack by the 2×4 of history.

   • Takuan Seiyo

     “Let’s please stop harping about the “Left,”’

     Yes, indeed. In my opinion, the progressive Left of previous generations wouldn’t have supported the Trojan Horse of institutionalised multiculturalism, cultural relativism or the Islamic ideology in the name of ‘anti-racism’. Today there’s the Left (somewhere?) and the pseudo-Left of guilt-ridden, often racially patronising, useful idiots.

     I’m a leftist “Islamophobe”BTW, Islamisation is not a Left/Right issue.

   • Well said T.S.; it does seem that our politicians in Western Europe are, to quote Enoch Powell referring to British immigration policies in April 1968, “busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre”. It would appear that the elites in neither Britain nor Western Europe, have learned from their terrible immigration errors in the interim.

2. Personally, I see left and right as obsolete terms. Yes, the left still exists. It still strong. It merely changed their commercials and slapped a bit of paint on the same old rhetoric.

   The right (as in: anything opposing it) never really existed.

   All left wing ideologies share the same goal, they differ in how to reach it. Yes, they can quarrel amongst each other, try to lure in voters. But in the end the goal is the same for all of them: a classless society in which all are equal (but the Party a heck of a lot more equal).

   The right is a mishmash of republicans, monarchists, (protestant) theocrats, liberals, and god nows what more. They all have very different agendas and most of them hardly collaborate. Often they won’t even want to be in the same room.

   • The right (as in: anything opposing it) never really existed.

     The more or less founder of mid-twentieth conservatism would have agreed with you, but I doubt your world view and his co-incide much. In a way, I’m trying to say you’re both tough-minded but your respective conclusions are quite different.

     There is the ‘social’ right and the ‘economic right’. I lean more toward the latter as I am loath to interfere with others, or have them interfere with me…

     Sometimes I join forces with the populist aspects of the Tea Party bec they want government to shrink and they’re willing to put energy into making that happen.

     My favorite economic philosopher is Frederic Bastiat (my keyboard doesn’t have the French accents- sorry)
     Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

     Often the masses are plundered and do not know it.

     When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.

     And what is liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties – liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, or labor, or trade?

     He was only 49 when he died so his work exists in fragments. In that respect, I think of him as a kind of pre-Socratic.

     M.Bastiat wrote a brief monograph on government. Considering that his own country’s revolution finished two years before he was born, he’d had his short lifetime to see its effects and wasn’t impressed.

     http://bastiat.org/en/government.html

     Back then, in say 1830 or so, the American Experiment hadn’t failed yet. Many of us would like to return to that time, but we want to bring in broadband fiber optics, a phone glued to our ear, constant entertainment, and government-furnished benefits so we can avoid any discomfort. Sad, really…

     …on the other hand, if Iran ever follows through with its EMP plans for us, America WILL revert instanatly, except for those states which took it seriously and ‘hardened’ their airspace to prevent the effects. So far, only Maine has made any movement toward doing so…

     And will that nice European Union remain civilized as we scrape by on a 18th century “footprint”? More likely it will be the renaissance of piracy.

     And if anyone says we’ll “live in interesting times” I will personally break their keyboard in half. Please, please, find another old Chinese saying before the Chinese arrive. Personally, I like “a fish rots from the head down”.

     • “All men divide the lot of life into two parts, throwing the trouble upon others, and keeping the satisfaction for themselves.”

       Well, not a Chinese proverb per se.

       “Men purchase a present comfort at the price of future evils.”

       Also not a Chinese proverb.

       But the entire sum of all morality is to resist these two natural tendencies. Which is really only the second tendency, since it includes the first.

       This is why it is fundamentally impossible for anyone who does not accept and contemplate the eternal nature of the self to remain moral. They always eventually decide that they can escape the worse evil in the future because they will be dead by then anyway. Trying to make men moral when they don’t accept and contemplate their eternal nature necessitates ensuring that they can have no reasonable hope of dying before the full measure of retribution for their misdeeds has been exacted.

       Which isn’t very moral either.

       The best we can do is leave it up to people to decide for themselves whether they want to believe they’ll still be around to experience the consequences of their bad decisions, no matter how long it takes for them to come back home to roost, and act accordingly ourselves.

   • If what I have read can be believed, the terms left and right originated with the French parliament where the monarchists sat on the right and the anti-monarchists sat on the left.

     Since there are almost no monarchists anymore (excepting perhaps the pro-caliphate Muslim population) it’s a bit difficult to see how these terms changed over time.

     Left now seems to mean anti-traditionalist but pro-economic-authoritarian. Right could mean just about anything else.

     The problem is that we have for a very long time allowed neo-Marxists to control language. (Semantic control is a significant part of Marxist “revolutionary” theory.) This is evident from the number of times people have used the neo-Marxist terminology (islamophobic) just within the comments on this article.

     The unfortunate truth out there is that there’s a linguistic battlefield. Ideas have to either fight to win using tactics that actually work or they get killed. Right now the neo-Marxists seem to have a near monopoly on effective soldiers and commanders.

3. If I may contribute my ha’peth worth..

   Terms like “left”, “right”, “centre”, “moderate” etc etc are frankly completely meaningless terms and only have the meaning the the prevailing powers that be append to them…

   At least that’s what a classically liberal centre left/right anarcho-syndicalist like me thinks anyhow.

   On a vaguely related theme I recall a story where Reagan was being wheeled into the operating theatre after he was shot and him asking the surgeon whether he was a republican? To which the surgeon apparently replied, “Mr President, in here everyone is a Democrat”…

   Which brings me to the following,

   When we are finally in the existentialist struggle in the next decade or so then the overwhelming majority of the current left/right/centre paradigm will suddenly ALL find themselves being fervent “democrats”.

   If one gets my drift…

4. It seems like Geert has shaken the hornets’ nest – so he should expect the hornets to respond with a frenzied attack. For that, it would help if Geert had some more data ready, to face the inevitable hand-wringing that his speeches propose… for example:

   A list of countries and cities in Africa that are “safe”.
   A list of Gulf states with greater or (roughly) equal wealth to the Netherlands.
   A breakdown of the €26,000 figure per refugee (what does it include, where is it from?)
   Examples of “migrants” coming in not from war-torn regions such as Syria, but relatively wealthy places such as Nigeria.

   Also, points such as “we’d expect Christians to go to Gulf states?” should be answered straight away, with “As Christians have nowhere else to go, and assimilate well into the largely Christian society here, they can come, if they can prove that they are who the claim to be”.

   We can beat off the hornets – but only by being more aggressive than them! And yes – even risk being accused of the big R-word (the insinuation behind this, and all other attacks against Wilders, Farage and others). But reply with asking, if the harassment, costs and loss of quality of life (seen by phenomena such as white flight) locals face from accommodating “migrants” is a better alternative.

   • As an aside – if the hornets feel like they’re being faced with someone more powerful than them, they’ll switch to their next tactic: change the subject. Or finish the session.

     Once they do that, you know you’re onto a winner!

5. I guess the most obvious thing that was not touched upon in this clip is that the “migrants” themselves actually choose to go to dangerous countries such as Libya (in order to reach Europe.) Subsequently it’s a little bit rich to claim that they cannot be return to Libya because this somehow constitutes an unprecedented danger.

   A glaring example of logical fallacy, or just wilful ignorance from hardcore multiculturalists?

Comments are closed.