This article by Alexander Maistrovoy appeared recently in The Canada Free Press.
[Gates of Vienna previously posted an essay by Mr. Maistrovoy almost a year ago]
“Samson Option”: choice in absence of choice?
“When people speak about human rights, everyone has in mind his own ones”, German scientist and publicist, Wilhelm Schwebel, wrote. His words perfectly reflect the issue of “breaking” the Gaza blockade. These actions are as related to human rights as Josef Stalin’s “fight for peace”.
Not a single person has died of hunger in Gaza. They die in the other parts of the world, like Kirghizia, but nobody cares. The rights of Palestinians are above the rights of, say, the Uzbek people as well as Sudanese Christians, Iraqi Kurds, Boers in Southern Africa, “Ahmadyya” in Pakistan and the Baha’i in Iran. Palestinians are the high caste of mankind because (fortunately for them) they are up against Israel, and the international community has its own rights and interests in this conflict.
What are they? The interests of all the players are very clear except for those in the West:
– – – – – – – – –
- The goal of Iran is to strengthen its base on the Mediterranean Sea coast to escalate the confrontation with Israel and moderate Sunni Arab regimes, and at the same time to distract the world attention from its nuclear program.
- The goal of Turkish Justice and Development Party led by Erdogan is to get points before the elections, make Turkey the leader of the Sunni world and to revive the national ambitions lost with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
- Russia is supporting Iran and Turkey in an attempt to restore the previous Soviet influence, push the U.S. out of the region, and recover its lost imperial greatness.
The aims of these powers are completely contrary to the aims of the other two leading players in the region: Israel and the moderate Arab regimes.
The goal of Israel is simple: to provide for its own safety by weakening HAMAS and depriving it of its life support: weaponry, rockets and building materials to fortify smuggling and transportation tunnels and defensive bunkers.
Arabs fear the Iranian Shiites. Nor do they want Turkey
The goal of the moderate Arab regimes coincides with that of Israel.
Arabs fear the Iranian Shiites. Nor do they want Turkey, which they dislike and fear also, to raise its role in the Middle East. Least of all they are interested in strengthening the Palestinian enclave where the Iranians and Turks will rule.
This is a major concern of the Mubarak regime. Egypt fears the popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Palestinian HAMAS is an offshoot).
Theoretically both Israel and the Arab regimes are allies of the West. So it would be right to assume that the West will protect them from regional predators, no?
Alas, common sense and political expediency do not work here, for two reasons: the first is the irreparable losses of spiritual and cultural values by the formerly great world civilization, and the second is banal political cowardice.
The radical left and liberal part of the Western elite has voluntarily deprived itself of its own heritage, values and ideals. It has refused its own right to exist, reconciling itself to a secondary role and even as it recognizes its own uselessness.
“Alliance of Civilizations” of Zapatero and Obama is nothing else but accepting voluntary the status of dhimmitude
The supposed “Alliance of Civilizations “ of Zapatero and Obama is nothing more than accepting voluntarily the status of dhimmitude, while inviting an alien strong, dominant, and aggressive civilization to take the place of their own bankrupt and degraded one.
Obama’s bows to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, a mosque in the place of the World Trade Center, kufiyä on Zapatero’s neck, and the Libyan terrorist who had blown up the plane over Lockerbie released “for health reasons” – all are displays of this outlook.
As Israel is the main irritant to Muslims, it loses its right to exist.
Zapatero recognizes the idea almost openly, Obama does it less obviously, but the essence does not change. His recent demands that Israel open its nuclear program for IAEA oversight and that it remove Gaza ‘s blockade are more eloquent than any other words he has spoken.
The other part of the Western political elite, the European right and social-democrats, don’t accept this attitude. However, they don’t have any outlook at all. Their only goal is to keep their power up to the next election and not to “rock the boat”. This ideology of surviving at all costs leads to the policy of appeasement:
- Sarkozy (“Disproportionate application of force” by Israel);
- Kouchner (“Recognize Palestinian state before the agreement between Israel and the PA is signed”);
- Brown (“Labourites have a lot in common with Muslims”);
- Miliband (“More respect” to Muslims);
- Baroness Ashton (The blockade is “unacceptable and politically counterproductive”); and
- Berlusconi kissing the hands of Muammar Kaddafi.
Note that none of these is anti-Semitic. Some of these spokesmen are even Jews; they have nothing against Israel, per se. They have even less concern for the simple fact that the Muslim “sea” is flooding their own house, washing away its foundations.
So of what use is it to speak about Israel, Mubarak and the Hashemite dynasty? Why speak at all, if it is more comfortable to be silent? Especially when Big Business, EU officials, “Greens” and anti-globalists, “Human Rights Watch” and their own cultural elite refuse to resist. So they meekly follow the “Alliance of Civilizations”.
The more timorous the policy of the West appears, the more aggressive Ahmadinejad and Erdogan become. The U.S. and Western Europe encourage these hysterical politicians, whose their wild behaviors may lead to uncontrollable consequences.
Fall of moderate Arab regimes in Egypt , Jordan and the Persian Gulf states, Israel will be backed into a corner
If the situation does not change (that is extremely improbable), we will witness a two-act drama.
The first act will be the fall of moderate Arab regimes in Egypt, Jordan and the Persian Gulf states. If it happens, the second act will follow.
Israel will be backed into a corner, surrounded by uncontrollable and mad regimes. It will face total Islamic hysteria. It will witness the circle of its enemies – Turkey, Syria, Iran and their puppets in Lebanon and Gaza – unite with “revolutionary” Muslim brothers in Egypt and Jordan.
Israel will see the silent indifference of the West at best, and shouts of triumph and jeering at worst. The next Holocaust will cease to be an abstraction and become a reality.
Israel will then have only two options: to die without a fight, or to be lost after having destroyed its enemies. In other words, the option of falling victim to genocide or the “Option of Samson”.
Zapatero and Obama believe that Israel will choose the first one. Considering the tragic and painful history of Jews, from Maccabeus and Jerusalem’s zealots to the Warsaw ghetto and the Six-Day War, I would not hurry to any conclusions.
And in this case there will be no outside observers…
Alexander Maistrovoy’s bio:
I was born in Moscow in 1960. In the 80s I began working in journalism and my work was published in various Moscow newspapers.
I immigrated to Israel in 1988 where I work for the Russian-language Israeli press. For about fifteen years I’ve been a political analyst and journalist at the newspaper Novosty Nedely (“News of the Week”).
I live in Jerusalem, write about politics, social life and religion. A number of English Internet editions and websites have published my work.
Mr. Maistrovoy can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Here is his archive from The Canada Free Press
We are witnessing the early stages of a world war, there’s no doubt about it. Israel is just one phase of it. No, Western political leaders do not support Israel properly, but then they don’t defend their own nations against Islamic aggression and expansionism, either, so at least they are consistent in their dhimmitude. My bet is that the Israelis will fight. Hard.
Iran will soon have nuclear weapons. In the next regional war in the Middle East nuclear weapons will be used. If Israel is facing extermination it will exterminate its enemies; consider it a ‘human right’. But consider this: the effect of oil production out of the Middle East dropping to near zero. Agricultural production worldwide is heavily dependent on oil production. A cut in oil production of the magnitude following a Middle Eastern war that includes nuclear weapons will result in a massive decline in worldwide agricultural production. Result: mass starvation; think billions. With every passing day the duplicitous craven West by its actions supports and strengthens the Islamic jihad and undermines Israel and brings us closer to the great catastrophe.
Arius: The West is in decline as a percentage of the global population and economy, but we are still the strongest single civilization. When the current incarnation of the West tanks within the coming generation, which it will, the ripple effects will be felt across the entire planet, from Greenland to Zimbabwe. There will be mass starvation in many Third World countries. Can Arabs drink their oil? We will see…
I am writing on an essay titled “Preparing for Ragnarok, and for What Comes After It.” The white West is currently facing what the Norse called Ragnarok or Ragnarök (“Doom of the Gods” or “Judgment of the Powers”), the end of the world as we know it. It will mean the death of the main god Odin and his son Thor. This is described in the Icelandic poem Voluspá (“Prophecy of the Seeress [Volva]”), the first poem of the Poetic Edda and one of our most important sources for understanding ancient Norse mythology. Odin will meet his end against the giant wolf Fenrir. Thor will fight against Jörmungandr, the giant sea serpent known as the Midgard Serpent that bites itself in its tail and encircles the human world (Midgard). Thor will vanquish it, but after walking nine steps he will fall dead from its venom. Following this destruction a new world will arise from the sea. Some of the gods will survive, as will two humans who proceed to repopulate the Earth.
In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by the English writer Douglas Adams, the Earth is literally demolished by aliens to make way for a hyperspace expressway. That’s not what we’re talking about here. It is important to notice that while Ragnarok is indeed the end of the world as we know it, it is not “the end of history” per se. A new world will arise from its ashes. We should now sow the seeds that can grow into strong trees bearing fine fruits in the future. This version of European civilization is dead and cannot be saved. We must prepare for a new one.
We are not like the peoples of the desert, who believe that Allah has already decided everything that happens in your life. Allah hasn’t decided anything; there is no Allah. We should also reject the Marxists, who once believed that the Communist society was “inevitable” and now believe that the Multicultural society is “inevitable.” They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. There is no fate. European man shapes his own destiny.
The French writer Guillaume Faye has this comment:
“We need to break with all forms of ‘ethnopluralism,’ which is simply another kind of egalitarianism, and reclaim the right to ‘ethnocentrism,’ the right to live in our own lands without the Other. We also have to reclaim the principle: ‘To each his own.’ Besides, only Westerners believe race-mixing is a virtue or envisage the future as a melting pot. They alone believe in cosmopolitanism. But the 21st century will be dominated by a resurgence of ethno-religious blocs, especially in the South and the East. Francis Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ will never happen. Instead, we’re going to experience an acceleration of history with the ‘clash of civilizations.’ Europeans also need to break with the ‘presentism’ in which they are sunk and learn to see themselves again (as do Muslims, Chinese, and Indians) as a ‘long-living people,’ bearers of a future. The mental revolution needed to bring about this change in European attitudes is, though, only possible through a gigantic crisis, a violent shock, which is already on its way.”
He believes that the present global system, founded on a belief in miracles and the myth of indefinite progress, is on the verge of collapse. Humanity is threatened by a cataclysmic crisis that is likely to occur sometime between 2010 and 2020 – a crisis provoked by the on-going degradation of the ecosystem, by the exhaustion of fossil fuel sources and food producing capacity, by the increased fragility of an international economic order based on speculation and massive indebtedness, by the return of epidemics, by terrorism, nuclear proliferation and by the growing aggressiveness of Islam’s global Jihad offense. We need to prepare now for these converging catastrophes, as their cataclysmic effects will sweep away liberal modernity:
“Fatalism is never appropriate. History is always open-ended and presents innumerable unexpected caprices and turns. Let’s not forget the formula of William of Orange: ‘Where there’s a will, there’s a way.’ The period we are presently living through is a one of resistance and of preparation for the even more threatening events to come, such as might follow the juncture of a race war and a massive economic downturn. We need to start thinking in post-chaos terms and organize accordingly. In closing, let me leave you with a favorite watchword of mine: ‘From Resistance to Reconquest, From Reconquest to Renaissance.’”
Guillaume Faye adds that “The twenty-first century will be a century of iron and storms. It will not resemble those harmonious futures predicted up to the 1970s. It will not be the global village prophesied by Marshall MacLuhan in 1966, or Bill Gates’ planetary network, or Francis Fukuyama’s end of history: a liberal global civilization directed by a universal state. It will be a century of competing peoples and ethnic identities. And paradoxically, the victorious peoples will be those that remain faithful to, or return to, ancestral values and realities – which are biological, cultural, ethical, social, and spiritual – and that at the same time will master technoscience. The twenty-first century will be the one in which European civilization, Promethean and tragic but eminently fragile, will undergo a metamorphosis or enter its irremediable twilight. It will be a decisive century.”
The aims of these powers [Iran, Turkey & Russia] are completely contrary to the aims of the other two leading players in the region: Israel and the moderate Arab regimes.
This neglects to observe how any emergence of regional influence by Russia closely replicates Soviet era outcomes in that they are also contrary to the bulk of Western interests.
Despite downed airliners, derailed trains, shredded subway cars, demolished apartment blocks, an opera house full of corpses and a schoolyard strewn with hundreds of dead children, Russia continues to be a net exporter of terrorism. Russia’s latest marketing of an oceanic container-borne cruise missile system is proof positive of this assertion.
The goal of the moderate Arab regimes coincides with that of Israel.
Especially if one takes this article’s title in its original context. The traditional “Sampson Option” embodies Israel’s tacit promise to Glass and Windex™ the entire MME (Muslim Middle East), should it take even a single WMD hit from its genocidal neighbors. To avoid having your entire nation transformed into a glow-in-the-dark parking lot pretty well defines the concept of coinciding goals.
The supposed “Alliance of Civilizations “ of Zapatero and Obama is nothing more than accepting voluntarily the status of dhimmitude, while inviting an alien strong, dominant, and aggressive civilization to take the place of their own bankrupt and degraded one.
More like an “Alliance of Abject Cowards” but what else is new?
Zapatero and Obama believe that Israel will choose the first one [to die without a fight].
A more abject or mistaken case of personal projection is difficult to imagine. Much to theirs and Islam’s horrified surprise, it is doubtful in the extreme that Israel will go quietly into the night.
… I would not hurry to any conclusions.
Whereas I would. The most apparent one being that Islam’s juggernaut is hurtling towards its foreordained precipice with predictable and typically unusual haste. Even absent Israeli intervention, Islam’s fatally negative outcome is predetermined by its own intrinsically violent nature. Wretchard long ago noted how “… a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed …“. As is all too often the case, even for Muslims, Islam has no upside.
Even with nuclear weapons Israel is a hard nut to crack. Nuclear weapons are powerful, for sure, but hardly they are able to win a war. Not if the other side (Israel) have take steps to limit their usefulness.
How many “secure shelter” are available in Israel? I bet many, given they are subjected to continuous attacks. So, given the nuclear attack is not a complete surprise, the loss will be limited. I don’t know if this would be so for the Arab population of Israel. Then, if Israel survive, the Arab population could find a good idea to migrate somewhere else. More Jewish Israel would be an ironic consequence of this. And much more free land in the West bank and Gaza doubly so.
The only real existential risk for Israel could come from Egypt, if it go at war against Israel. But it is my understanding that with a bomb run or a single A-Bomb hitting the Aswan Dam half of the population of Egypt would be washed in the Mediterranean Sea in few hours and the country near completely rubbed away. The dam hold 111 Km3 of water. Here, in Italy, we had a dam incident in the past (Vajont Dam). The dam lasted, but a large chunk of the mountain fell in the basin. The water overflow, jumped over a little village and fell into the valley (the wave was 250 m high on top of the dam). The water run over the valley at a speed so high that near villages were wrecked by the wind caused. The water overflow was of 25 millions m3 (the landslide that caused the overflow of 250 millions m3) Aswan is “only” 4-500 times larger of the landslide and 4-5.000 times larger of the water overflow from the Vajont Dam.
The water would travel fast in the valley, probably 4-900 km/h giving very small warning to the population down the river. And for the survivors there would be nothing last a part a featureless land covered with many feet or yards of mud. No homes, no food, no arable land, no water conduits, no power, very few cars/trucks/trains/airplanes. 99% of the population of Egypt would be hit by the disaster.
After this, the other nations if the Middle East would pause and reconsider their options, because war would imply the extermination of Israel or of their populations.
Faye could be right on part of the analyses but the economic parts are lame. And the solutions proposed are crazy. Reintroducing a caste-system like in India when the Indo-European invaded the place?
I, as one of the founders of the NTI (Network of Italian Transhumanists) have a ongoing polemics with the AIT (Association Italian Transhumanists) given their current president is a techno-identitarian with a fascists bent that call Faye his guru. You can read something about this here:
The political Root of Sovrumanism
On the Neofascist Infiltration of Italian Transhumanism
Chrome Plated Jackboots
P: No, I do not want a caste system. Historically speaking, whenever whites have extensively mixed with non-whites on the same land, the result has been an ugly racial caste system, as demonstrated by India and parts of Latin America. Culture is the result of a fusion between genes and ideas, but genes have to be at the base. Western civilization is European civilization. It can only be created and maintained by Europeans, and by that I mean people with a European gene pool.
We can absorb a few high-IQ Asians here and there; that’s not the end of the world. But if the European gene pool is too diluted then the resulting population will lack our potential. Just look at mestizo Hispanics today. As long as people live side by side, they will mix sexually. It’s human nature, and even a repressive caste system can only slow this trend down, not stop it. Unless the entire Western world wants to become one giant Mexico, this leaves us with only one choice: To reestablish the West as a predominantly white region. Yes, that includes expelling many people. Sorry, but there is no other way. We do that, or we perish. It’s The Camp of the Saints, but for real.
What we will witness, I suspect, is the rise of a new generation of European civilization. A discontinuity with a lot of ugliness lies ahead, but if we can successfully preserve our genetic potential then we can bounce back once better and healthier ideas have prevailed. Above all, we need a new sense of morality. Get rid of excessive egalitarianism and deranged altruism. The key to this transformation is to reinvigorate the masculine pride in white men. Sooner or later, they will remember one basic truth: We are the great conquering race. We do not fear other people. Other people fear us.
How are radical Islamists going to defeat the various national armies of the Arab world? I don’t think that the generals of these armies wants to hand over the control to raving lunatic Islamic nutters, and in these countries the military don’t exactly treat coup d’état plotters with silk gloves. And if these Islamists can’t even defeat their own armies how are they then going to defeat Israel, which has one of the strongest armed forces in the world??
Ever heard about rendition? Jordan, Egypt and several other Arab countries have tortured and killed radical Islamists for having plotted to carry out terrorist attacks in the west. Many of these Islamists have been shipped to these places by the US authorities. Arab nations have also acted on there own and gone after several of these Islamists themselves torturing and killing heaps of them, so why would they all of a sudden hand over the control of their armies to the very same Islamists?
Radical Islamic idiots are no match for the various Arab armies, and they are certainly no match for ultra modern Western armies like the Israeli army. And no sane Arab General would ever dream of nuking Israel as this would mean the guaranteed destruction of his own country. Any nation that decided to explode a nuclear device over Israel would itself be nuked out of existence shortly thereafter. Even Al Qaida found out the hard way that each action has a reaction, when the US kicked their asses out of Afghanistan.
I don’t think that there’s going to be a new world war anytime soon. Doomsayers however have existed since the beginning of time and they’ve always tried to convince us that the world is coming to an end. I just don’t buy it.
Randal Parker @ Futurepundit support vocally the thesis that the current low fertility is simply selecting for high fertility individuals, so we will experience a raising fertility in the future.
Another thesis is that the DNA sequentialization technology will allow parents to select their offspring (selecting off the unfits or modifying the DNA). In large part many personality traits will be linked to the DNA, so people will be able to have children with the same political inclinations of the parents, or the personality traits desired:
more drive in the job, more fertility drive, more honesty, more reciprocity, more resistance to trauma and stress, etc.
This could play an important part in this clash of civilizations: I don’t see the Chinese, Japanese or Indians don’t exploit this possibility. It is like Internet or the cellphone, it is a game changer.
Does anyone else notice the historical connections behind the notion of a Samson Option?
Samson’s final act of defiance was to bring down the walls of the Philistine’s temple to their god Dagon. Killing all of the Philistines there, (according to the Bible, around 3,000 in number), while ending his own life in the process.
The Philistines, in ancient times, occupied the region that we know today as Gaza. The word “Palestinian”, that we use today to referee to the non-Jewish residents of the land, actually derives from an ancient word for the Philistines.
A bit of cognitive dissonance, that seems to be lost on all of the pro- “Palestinian” activists is that the Philistines were not a Semitic people. Their origin was most likely Minoan or Greek. So if the term “Palestinian” is to have any historical meaning then it must refer to the decedents of the original occupiers of Gaza, the Philistines.
A humble guess is that most of those people referred to today as the Palestinians are descendants, by one path or another, of the Samaritans. But the Samaritans were also Hebrew, that is, descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob too.
So either the Palestinians are Minoan or Greek in ancestry, and hence descendants of foreign occupiers of that land, or they are descendants of the Samaritans and hence ancestral cousins of the Jews they hate so much. The only other choice is that the term Palestinian has no historical connection to the current occupiers of that region and hence is a useless term, signifying nothing.
Less guesswork and more documentation work would bring you better informations.
The current Palestinians have nothing to do with the biblical Philistines or the Samaritans.
Look at the Wikipedia for info.
Philistines are extinct as a people.
Samaritans, they claim to be Jews that were not deported in Babylon and they formed separated communities when the Jews returned to Israel from Babylon. They have their set of books and doctrine. They were numerous around the time of Jesus and after, until they started to rebel first against the Byzantine and after against their Muslim masters (they sided with the Muslims against the Byzantine first). So, in a few centuries their number from, probably, 2 millions, fell to few families because of conversions and extermination. Just now there are only an hundred Samaritans alive.
What people don’t get is that rights are social constructs done within a sovereign nation and those rights have a SPECIFIC PURPOSE. That purpose is, normally, the best way to organize the said nation. Since sovereignty comes out of the barrel of a gun, rights by extension do too.
Arius, even without the cut in oil, as Europe and the Anglo world go under, the half of Africa that is living on welfare from us won’t have anything to eat. And Africans don’t vote in our elections, old people do. So our welfare people will eat first. Sure, in time they probably won’t get anything either as our service economies can’t produce goods that we need, we can just borrow.
Fjordman, I agree with you. I’m also glad that my country has a huge agricultural potential and we could more or less feed ourselves(with proper capital, apparently we could feed 60 million people according to a report I read, but again, we don’t have that). I’m also glad that I will inherit some land and since I spent a part of my childhood on the countryside, I know how to do subsistence farming a bit. Also, food stocks are at the lowest they’ve been in 30 years as Jim Rogers points out, while all farmers are old men. This, combined with declining oil stocks which are needed in agriculture, civil strife and so on in the productive parts of the world could very easily lead to the biggest mass starvation in world history. For example, I was talking to a friend about it and told him that I think that half of Africa will starve to death and he said that it will probably be more like two thirds. What most people don’t get is that even if China is slightly better off since they have savings and produce things, demographically they face huge problems too – lots of old people and a huge male surplus. Their only ways out are war in order to kill off the male surplus, which would mean something like colonize Africa and have their population never retire – which is the future for everybody that will be old after the collapse of this paradigm. In my country people are actually realizing that they will never retire – my generation, at least. A lot of us knows that the retirement system is broke and we won’t see even crumbs from it.
The situation is potentially better than you think: technologically we could do wonder that are economically gainful (aka no need of subsides). The real problem is to take off the parasites of the government out of our back.
Capitals (private capitals) are not a problem to obtain, if the private property is respected.
For example, aquaculture can be done with limited investments in abandoned industrial/commercial settings (there are plenty of these). You produce vegetables AND fish 365/year. It is industrial food production, not processing (like now).
Nuclear power can be financed by privates (look out for Hyperion Energy), no need for the government to interfere.
Techno/scientific progress is acceleration but the government are, mainly, in the way of it. They reduce the rate of adoption and investment with their high taxes end regulation. So grow is sluggish.
We kill the welfare state, we reduce the taxation to 20% of GDP (too much higher than really needed), we delete from the books 90% of the laws and rules (superfluous stuff only). Then we start grow our economies 5-10% yearly, like it happen in China, probably better.
Then we can fix the problems with Islamists and Islam with the pocket money.
There seems to be an endless heap of suggestions about what can be done to sort out the ills of the western world. According to some commentators it’s just a matter of doing this and that and then everything will be just fine, and the recipes are only a few paragraphs long. It probably sounds very easy and simple to achieve when it’s written down in a blog post and maybe the authors actually believe that it’s that simple. But the truth is that a lot of the suggestions that I’ve come across are just ‘fairytale’ suggestions that are not based in reality at all.
Killing the welfare state for instance (by this I mean stopping the flow of immigrants and greatly reduce the expenses related to looking after them) is not something that can be done with a simple stroke of a pen. It’s a little bit more complicated than that unless one wants to introduce a dictatorship ala Zimbabwe or North Korea.
It’s very hard to achieve anything in politics because there are so many different players with different agendas and political beliefs. Even within a political party there are various factions that are “plotting against each other” and not necessarily acting in the best interest of the party. And even if a political party was in a majority position and was able to dictate political decisions there would still be heaps of special interest groups to contend with, special interest groups representing individuals and organizations who’re finding it highly profitable to maintain the current political course.
Because there are lots of people making huge fortunes on the current immigration mess. Human trafficking and people smuggling are only second to the drug trade when it comes to profitability. These people would do everything in their power to prevent a reversal of the very liberal policies that are in place today. It’s the same thing with the illegal drug trade it would be fairly easy to at least reduce the flow of drugs into the west if there was a political will to do so.
And then there is the EU and UN to contend with organizations that can impose both economic and political sanctions against “stubborn” nations that don’t fall in line. That happened to Austria in the 1990’s when Haider ended up in the Austrian government.
My point is that it’s useless to suggest ‘grandiose political schemes’ that would ‘solve’ all the problems of the west but which would never ever stand a chance to be implemented in real life. It would be a lot more beneficially to come up with actual policies that could actually work and which could actually stem the flow of illegals pouring into Europe, or somehow come up with specific measures that ordinary people could follow which would be effective in reducing the Islamists political power in Europe.
Painlord2k. First, you’re being guilty of what all liberal PC thinkers are, equating culture and religion with race. Yes, the ancient Philistine culture was extinct by 2.5K years ago, but the Philistine people didn’t just get back in their boats and sail off into the sunset, never to be heard from again. The Philistine people themselves never left; they were just assimilated into the surrounding Canaanite culture.
And likewise, while the Samaritan culture and religion is all but extinct, the 2 million, or so, Samaritans that occupied the Levant in the 1st Century AD didn’t just one day walk out into the desert, never to be heard from again either. The ancestors of those 2M are not gone, just assimilated; first into the Greek world, then the Roman, then the Byzantine Christian and then finally into the Muslim world.
Second, next time I try and point out the irony in a situation, I’ll make a special note for you. That you will be sure and get it and not waste your time thinking you’re correcting me about things I already know more about than you seem to. Here is the point.
Start Irony alert !!!!
Any group that wants to lay claim to the title “Palestinian” needs to show (or at least claim) some ancestral connection to the area the Romans referred to as Palestine. But in order for one to do that, one would have to count among ones possible ancestors, the Jews and/or the Samaritans, since they were the two dominant population groups that occupied that region in the 1st Century AD.
End Irony Alert.
Painlord2k, with no civic strife, demographic problems and the like, we could do those, I agree. But you have quite the number of old people and other population dependent on aid from the productive bits. Just like in my country, we import food since the incentives of getting the agricultural system of the ground just aren’t there. People have no incentive to sell their fragmented land since the government doesn’t tax it, while they’d tax it if you do something with it, huge investments would be required(since my dear countrymen stole everything they could after 1989, including the irrigation system so that they could make fences and sell it as scrap metal) and so on. Obviously if taxes wouldn’t be there, I might have an incentive to do something with the land my family owns. But I don’t.
kritisk, the current political system of Europe failed. So yes, we will probably have some dictatorships in the future. Besides, one man one vote democracy isn’t that far worse long term since it leads in the same place. So yes, if you think in the current let’s vote our way out of it, then yes, we are screwed. But most of Europe will go bankrupt by the time I will become 40 and it won’t even take all of that to stop Europe from being politically viable.
wildiris, the only territorial claim that is viable is the one done with tanks and guns. I’m the descendant of the first person on Earth, so the whole Earth should be mine to rule. Duh. You make a liberal mistake too – thinking that a group of people has a ‘right’ to a land.