Oppression Instead of Admission, Part II

Note: This post was originally posted on January 28, and was “sticky” for a few days. Scroll down for more recent pieces, including Paul Weston’s latest essay, “Merkel and Local Authorities Cut the Head off the Hydra”, a video about an ISIS Terror Cell in Northern Israel, “The Mark of Evil”, “The West is Abolishing Itself”, a video of an Israeli speaker at a PEGIDA demo in Frankfurt.

Part 1 of this series is here.

Francisco Goya, Witches’ Flight, 1798

Oppression Instead of Admission

Part II

by Takuan Seiyo

The Laws of Postmodern Social Reality

Prior to analyzing the fallout from the recent “extremist events” that we discussed in Part 1, it’s useful to take a look at the Laws of Social Reality that govern these phenomena.

Witnessing the psychotic fawning that the United States’ establishment lavished on Muslims and Islam after 9/11, the traditionalist thinker Lawrence Auster formed his Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society:

“The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctness in covering up for that group. The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group’s bad behavior.”

Auster elaborated further: “The First Law and its corollary are intrinsic to liberalism. Once the equality of all human groups is accepted as a given, any facts that make a minority or foreign group seem worse than the majority native group must be either covered up or blamed on the majority.”

Since the 1960s, this law has been immutable in all the lands of the Euro peoples, and was lavishly on display after the recent “extremist” unpleasantness in majority-white countries. But it alone cannot convey the manifold ways in which the West’s liberal rulers’ partly psychotic, partly conniving obsession with designated minorities, Muslim or not, affects our world’s present state and future destiny. In homage to the prematurely-departed Larry Auster, l shall formulate here the laws subsidiary to his and bracketing this phenomenon.

Takuan’s Laws of Designated Minorities’ role in Liberal Society

1. Liberal Society approaches all majority-minority issues with a quadruple blindfold.

Presentism is the first blindfold. All past attitudes and deeds relative to any minority are judged by present standards.

Relativism is the second blindfold. All judgments relative to past or current attitudes and deeds toward any minority are applied to White society alone.

Outlyism is the third blindfold. Any negative statistical fact relative to the mean or majority characteristics of any designated minority is shouted down by quoting the far-outlying exceptions to that statistical fact.

Sentimentalism is the fourth blindfold. All negative hard or statistical facts relative to any minority group are shouted down in preference to cuddly feelings about that group or implanted feelings of guilt relative to it.

2. The main goal of Liberal Society is to implement a radical equality that is unnatural and in defiance of salient biological facts and unchanging human reality. This can only be accomplished by coercion of the majority and squashing of once-common civil liberties. This, in turn, requires an enormous growth of the Liberal-Oppressive State, with its joined canopy of social repressions and engineered culture implemented by all societal institutions at levels as extreme, if not as violent, as they were under the Nazi Gleichschaltung.

3. Liberal Society inexorably fractures and breaks down due to its promotion of designated identitarian minorities and cultivation of the radically egalitarian fictions related thereto.

4. The ruling elite can keep Liberal Society together only by employing egregious means bordering on fascism.

These means include:

a) Enacting a giant and ever-growing array of new laws and regulations that substitute for the social cohesion that inhered before in shared cultural norms, traditions, social class codes, voluntary community standards and the reverberations of common history [I beg to cite a greater authority, Gaius Cornelius Tacitus: “The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.”]

b) Intimidation of the autochthon citizenry through a giant spying and enforcement apparatus of the classic totalitarian state, torqued to dystopian Sci-Fi levels with modern technology. It does protect the subject serfs from most acts of Muslim residents’ violence, but based as it is on the Liberal State’s principle of “non-discrimination,” its main effect is to cow and brutalize not the hostile invaders — pets of the ruling elites — but the invaded.

c) Undermining in every possible way the white majority’s former norms, traditions and standards, devaluing its shared history and breaking down its resistance to supersession by minorities promoted from within and imported.

This is done in seven ways:

c.1.   Massive propaganda in the mass media mostly in the form of “entertainment” or “news,” government-promoted lies, cultural brainwashing in the guise of K-12 or college education, and feverish promotion of the outliers in each minority group;
c.2.   A preponderance in the blanket of formal lies of the most obviously absurd, gross lies, e.g. “Diversity is Our Strength,” “Islam is a religion of Peace” and compelling obeisance to humiliate the ruled masses and flaunt their powerlessness;
c.3.   Stigmatizing, criminalizing and penalizing dissent and resistance to the induced social corrosion. This is done formally, e.g. “Hate Speech” laws, and informally, e.g. job firings and social exclusion;
c.4.   Dumbing down and degenerating the ruled population;

This is done by opening the floodgates on Free Speech relative to a 24/7 electronic media stream of the coarsest, most vulgar entertainment, porn and vicarious violence and manipulative, omnipresent advertising. Simultaneously, Free Speech is severely curtailed in the most critical areas that require thought and are important.

c.5.   Relentless demographic dilution of the majority through “economic” or “humanitarian” immigration of Third World minorities;
c.6.   Relentless dilution of the majority’s power by “affirmative action” that places unqualified minorities in career tracks and decision-making positions previously held mainly by qualified white males;
c.7.   Economic warfare on the savers, retirees and middle class job-holders.

5. Even as it destroys its people from the inside, the Liberal-Oppressive State, professing the same good intentions, unleashes wars elsewhere, usually in the countries from which its Muslim minorities have come. While this destroys those countries too, it serves Liberal State’s goals two ways: by generating a constantly renewable stream of Muslim “refugees” and by diverting the attention of the white majority from what is being done to it.

6. Liberal Society represents the triumphant victory of Marxism: another ideology contemptuous of human nature and biological fact.

The major difference from classical Marxism is that inequality of the classes in the communist dialectic has been replaced by inequality of the races, cultures, nationalities, religions, genders and sexual orientations — worldwide. This is a far more radical project than old style communism has ever been; it succeeded where the other failed, because it has operated by stealth and has had 60 years of vast, accumulated capitalist surplus to poach.

7. Liberal Society becomes so by its omnivorous head and carnivorous tail joining forces to consume the middle. The top head comprises the mega-billionaires, CEO’s of major corporations, a small pool of “electable” (i.e. liberal) politicians, the mandarins at the top of government’s bureaucracy, labor unions bosses, lawyers and academics. The tail head is the failed, lower-IQ minorities — expanded and fortified continuously by the top head’s obsession with race, immigration, psychotically truculent identitarians, and all other feeders at the government’s trough.

8. In Liberal Society, “conservatism” is an empty word. We are all New-Marxist liberals now.

Conservatives keep opposing the old-style Marxism that’s no longer relevant or transgressions against Christian theology. They have no courage to take on the main identitarian bases of New Marxism: women, the young, the resident nonwhite races and some white ethnic groups — more than half the population of Liberal Society and its main power base.

Minority-Majority laws of the Liberal State at work: January 7-23, 2015

As if to prove empirically the validity of Auster’s and Takuan’s laws, the following is just a sample of the reactive acts and utterances by Western society’s leaders and their compliant serfs in the sixteen days following the multiple Muslim mayhem in France.

The Swells Who Ride in Limousines (SWORILs) turned out en masse for a photo-op in Paris, with millions of Useful Idiots throughout the West declaring to TV cameras “Je suis Charlie Hebdo,” but not a single one declaring “Je suis Charlie Martel.” German Useful Idiots went as far as carrying signs that read, “I am Charlie Hebdo — but not PEGIDA.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Joachim Gauck attended in Berlin a Muslim-organized event “to promote tolerance and religious freedom and “to show solidarity with the victims.” The victims, alas, could no longer benefit from the solidarity.

Herr Gauck said to the crowd; “We are all Germany” and disclosed with astonishing originality that “Germany has become more diverse through immigration — religiously, culturally and mentally.” His assertion that this diversity has made Germany more successful, interesting and likeable was based on far more flimsy evidence.

Frau Merkel asserted that Islam was part of Germany and that there was no place for “hatred, racism and extremism” in the country. Of course not; that’s why an estimated 550 “Germans” are out of the country, exercising their hatred, racism and extremism with ISIS, with so many more trying to join that the German government is replacing their regular ID documents with “jihadi cards,” to prevent them from leaving the country.

German Justice Minister Heiko Maas made sure to visit a mosque in Berlin right after the attack, and called on the organizers of the PEGIDA march in Dresden to cancel it “out of respect for the victims of the terror attacks in France.” German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière offered his expert opinion that “extremist Islamism” is quite different from Islam.

Lessons in dhimmitude: German Justice Minister Heiko Maas (center) with Turkish hosts during his visit to Sehitlik Mosque in Berlin on Friday, January 9, 2015.

All along, German politicians and German media continued demonizing the anti-Islamization movement PEGIDA, downplaying its popularity and inflating the number and virtue of the counterdemonstrators. One particular report, instead of telling about the amazing grassroots growth of PEGIDA, commenced with this sentence:

“Some 300 rain-bedraggled ‘patriotic Germans’, xenophobes and outright racists stood forlornly outside Berlin’s town hall, hemmed in by around 5,000 anti-racist activists and several hundred riot police, their hopes of a march to the iconic Brandenburg Gate frozen in their tracks — just like the bitterly damp January weather.”

If the writer of this biased, preposterously manipulative, hateful dreck lived in 1935, he would have scored a corner office and a private secretary in Joseph Goebbels’ Reich Ministry of Propaganda.

The official German international media outlet Deutsche Welle found itself a political scientist in Vienna so that it could have an “authoritative” pretext to assert in its “Extremism” section: “Schmidinger: ‘PEGIDA will fizzle out,’ but anti-Islam mood worrying.”

Eventually, Germany’s Liberal-Oppressive State found a way to hobble PEGIDA with the appearance of legitimacy: the police banned a planned PEGIDA march in Dresden, citing a “terrorist” threat. Of course, means to shut down the terrorists rather than punish the victims of terrorism were never on the table, for they would entail “discrimination” against the Muslim minority. Discrimination against the disarmed, marching-rather-than-murdering majority is always preferable.

For the coup de grace, the crack regiment of the mass media — the key enzyme in the fermentation and decomposition of the West into Liberal Society mash — swooped down on the enemy. A newspaper dug out a Facebook photo of the founder of PEGIDA, Lutz Bachmann, sporting a Hitler-style mustache, plus some derogatory comments he’d made about Germany’s imported demographics. That was picked up and fanned by Germany’s most tabloid tabloid, Bild, and that was the end of Bachmann. He had to step down, with mediacrats noting in glee that he had “at first tried to laugh off the image as a joke.”

Which, of course, it was. A self-pitying joke of a simple man, therefore one who still knows which way the North is, unable to fathom, just as Tommy Robinson couldn’t, how devious and sophisticated and hateful his and his people’s ruling class is.

Mental Disease 1: Although the Wikipedia caption reads “Muslims march in Paris on 11 February 2006 against the publication of caricatures of Muhammad,” it’s clear that some of the marchers are white Frenchmen. (Photo copyright © 2006 David Monniaux)

70 PEGIDA demonstrators in Norway were drowned in screams of 200 by-the-book Norwegians: “No racists on our streets.” But in Texas, one of the last remaining pockets where a white majority has resisted the mass cranial implantation of remotely-controlled electrodes, thousands protested outside a Muslim conference titled “Stand With the Prophet Against Terror and Hate” and featuring Imam Siraj Wahhaj, a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The protesters held banners saying, “You are not Americans. Don’t fly our flag,” and “Go Home and take Obama With You.”

President Obama, on the other hand, blamed whitey for the Allahu Akbar outrages by stating that Europe needs to better integrate Muslim Communities. Obama’s press secretary Josh Earnest echoed his master in promising to crack down on journalists who write anti-jihad articles, and announced the “redoubling” of efforts by the United States to explain “what the tenets of Islam actually are.”

Curiouser and curiouser.

Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy said that “Immigration is not linked to terrorism.”

Gilles de Kerchove, the EU Counter-terrorism Coordinator and a sudden Islam scholar opined, “These are killers, not Muslims” — a diagnosis that was shared verbatim by another Islam expert, German SPD’s parliamentary leader Thomas Opperman, as it was by French president François Hollande. Another noted Islam scholar, ex-U.S. presidential candidate Howard Dean, diagnosed that the unpleasant extremists (he’d stopped calling them Muslim terrorists) were about as Muslim as he is.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls blamed those recent AK-47 indiscretions of disgruntled Frenchmen on “jihadism” and “terrorism” that he underscored were not Islam and Muslims. He then blamed whitey, i.e. French “apartheid” and the great bogeyman of the Liberal-Oppressive State: inequality. He promised, of course, to fight inequality, i.e. giving France’s Muslims much, much more jizya as a reward for their recent expressions of disgruntlement, so that they be more gruntled (hat tip, P.G. Wodehouse).

Mr. Valls then announced a “population policy to fight against ghettoization and segregation.” To those adept at interpreting the hidden meanings in statement from the Soviet Kremlin, it meant that the French Socialist Republic means to disperse Muslim immigrants from the 750 no-go zones and sprinkle them onto heretofore white, peaceful areas, so that all of France becomes “no-go.” Égalité, after all, is the middle word in the French national motto; so what if the first one is Liberté.

Reaching into his pocket to consult Takuan’s Red Book, Rule No.2, Mr. Valls then concluded his speech: “We have to re-arm the State,” he said, “Accomplish a mobilization without precedent”. Let it be clear, however, to those too quick to mock France, that the United States has been implementing the same policy with regard to its Black minority ever since coercive “busing” started in 1971, and as recently as the Obama’s administration’s coercing Whitopias like Marin County to “seek out minorities.”

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter blamed Israel for the Charlie Hebdo mayhem.

U.S. House of Representatives minority leader Nancy Pelosi announced that she would name the first Muslim lawmaker to House Intelligence Committee.

“Don’t succumb to fear,” said Swiss President Simonetta Sommaruga to her countrymen, so displaying also her additional credentials as a Socialist and — lucky Switzerland! — federal justice and police minister. She added that it would be a “fatal mistake” to attribute terror acts to the Muslim faith as a whole, and sang the praise of Switzerland’s Muslims. Asylum requests in Switzerland had risen by 11% to 23,765 in 2014, half of that Northwest Africans and Syrians. No doubt they’ll be “well integrated” in the pocketbook and social capital debit account of the indigenous Swiss taxpayer.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry flew to the swells’ conference in Davos (hot dog at the Steigenberger Grandhotel, $43.50) to call for “more resources in the anti-extremist fight” and, of course, to warn about Islamophobia. Mr. Kerry was on familiar grounds, at least geographically, having spent his early teens as a student at the Swiss Institut Montana boarding school (current annual fee $61,000) and then, having married up, selling his Lake Como house (10 km. from the Swiss border) to another Islam expert and noted political philosopher, George Clooney, for reportedly $7,800,000.

In other news from Davos, Christine Lagarde, Managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), annual salary $550,000 with no tax, spoke about her interest in equality over the years. Al Gore, net worth between $200 and $300 million, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who lives rent-free in a five-story, 14,000-square-foot town house in New York’s tony Sutton Place, and Francois Hollande, living rent-free in one of the most opulent (and energy-gobbling) palaces in the world, the Elysée, all spoke about “global warming” and — if one were to translate the newspeak/duckspeak into plain language — about the need to reduce Western peoples to the living conditions of a Romanian worker in 1955, so that China, India and the rest of the Third World may “close the gap” using whitey’s trillions in carbon credits and other transfer means.

And Sweden’s Domestic Minister Anders Ygeman must have memorized Takuan’s outlyism law, for when discussing the Muslim terror in France and its likely surge in Sweden he said “Je suis Ahmed,” in reference to the French Muslim policeman who lost his life to the Muslim terrorists.

NBC Television analyst Evan Kohlmann opined that France’s Problem is “The Far-Right,” not the Jihadists, let alone the 10 million African Muslims.

Great Britain’s Telegraph featured a headline on the Charlie Hebdo massacre that read “France faces rising tide of Islamophobia”

BBC News ran a program about the growing antisemitism in France, showing footage of a neo-Nazi march a year earlier, but nothing of the Muslim purveyors of 99% of the antisemitism.

The New York Daily News pixilated the Muhammad cartoon in its story about the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

Fox News issued an abject apology for “regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe,” citing “no credible information to support the assertion” concerning the existence of “so-called ‘No Go Zones’ areas where non-Muslims allegedly aren’t allowed in and police supposedly won’t go.” Bloomberg Businesweek published “Debunking the Myth of Muslim-Only Zones in Major European Cities.”

Despite the fact that an official French government document was published in 1996, listing 750 such zones, and reports by prestigious French institutions, among them Fondation Res Publica, Institut Montaigne, and University of Paris exist, describing these lawless (non-droit) colonies.

The Pope said that there are limits to free expression. Alas, his protestations after New York galleries’ exhibition of “Piss Christ” in 1987 and elephant dung “The Holy Virgin Mary” in 1999 are impossible to find.

And Duke University announced that the Muslim call to prayer (I don’t use Arabic religious terms) will sound, amplified, from the tower of the Duke chapel, every Friday at 13:00. “This opportunity represents a larger commitment to religious pluralism that is at the heart of Duke’s mission,” said Christy Lohr Sapp, the chapel’s associate dean for religious life. “It connects the university to national trends in religious accommodation.”

One of the most powerful men in American show business, Jon Stewart — universally considered smart and witty, I know not why — opined on his show that “extremism” is “a kind of pretext, this idea that it’s a religious backing, seems a pretext for just powerless… they’re angry, nihilistic.”

Liam Neeson, discussing the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, opined that “there are too many guns out there, especially in America.” Mr. Neeson’s films are not exactly a gun-free zone, but then his recent confession that he was considering conversion to beautiful Islam already indicates that his mind exceeds the capacity of his brain.

In Örebro, Sweden, so many “Swedes” were returning from their duties with ISIS’s jihad that local politicians started discussing “how to work with them.” So far, the only ideas on the table are to get them “help processing their traumatic experiences,” and helping them get jobs — in Sweden, not in Syria.

In Dresden, thousands marched with signs reading “Ich bin Khaled,” lighting candles, and raising “questions over the safety of asylum seekers in Germany”. It later transpired that Khaled Idris Bahray (I had to scour Eritrean media for this), an East-African Muslim, had been stabbed to death by his roommate, another East African — and to those who know the culture, very probably Muslim — refugee.

Mental Disease 2: commemorative shrine in Dresden to an African Muslim refugee murdered by another African Muslim refugee

The worst was wrought by an assembly of Europe’s Foreign Ministers that gathered in order to issue a proclamation. Not once mentioning the words Islam or Muslim — similar to a high level American commission’s report relative to U.S. Army Major Nidal Hassan’s terrorist attack in Fort Hood (while screaming Allahu Akbar) — it’s a typical proclamation of the ruling elite of the Liberal-Oppressive State. It flaunts its good intentions concerning the prevention of future malfeasance by “extremists,” under which hides further oppression of the innocent.

The proclamation promises to tighten the omnipresent surveillance network, including something as extreme as a “Intra-European Passenger Name Record.”

It promises increased spying on and censoring of Internet content, including “swift reporting” (and removal) of material that “aims to incite hatred and terror.” It all depends on how the regime defines “incitement to hatred,” doesn’t it?

It promises a bigger “fight against radicalization” — whose?

It vows “to raise awareness” and promote “the respect of fundamental rights and values” — of the Liberal-Oppressive State. It vows as well to “defend the values of peace and tolerance around the globe” — which means, inevitably stuffing Third World’s demographic rejects into the throats of Europe’s autochthons and coercing them to be “peaceful and tolerant.”

The proclamation announces the enhancement of mutual cooperation and sharing of intelligence to counter “violent extremism” — whose?

It promises to further limit the supply of firearms. “Illegal” firearms, but that’s a red herring; it’s law-abiding Europeans who’ll find it more difficult to obtain legal firearms.

What has not changed is the swift flow of Muslim and other Third World immigration imposed by the rulers on their serf populations. How neat that of the top six countries emitting large streams of refugees: Afghanistan (2.6 million refugees), Somalia (1.1 million), Iraq (746,200), Syria (729,000), Sudan (569,000), and DR Congo (509,300), three have been destroyed by the good intentions of the U.S.-led Liberal West, and two are just doing their usual Muslim thing that the West should have no part of…

Despite the lesson taught by the events in France — and thousands of such events before, there and elsewhere — no Western country had any second thoughts about its continuous self-disembowelment through Muslim immigration, particularly that of “refugees.”

The United States’ immigrant population had doubled since 1990 and reached 41.3 million by 2013 — only 8% of them immigrants from Europe but Arabs among the three largest-increasing immigrant groups. The total of legal Muslims immigrants now is between 3 to 7 million and growing on steroids, with certain jihadis both among them and among the illegal border crossers lured by Obama in order to colonize the infidel.

Nevertheless, not a single American politician questioned the import of close to 300,000 Muslim “refugees” over the last 15 years, most of them from Iraq and Somalia, and there is no party that can mount a successful defense against Obama’s granting amnesty to 20 million more illegals.

The U.S. State Department saw no reason to rethink its self-congratulation a month earlier concerning U.S. Plans to Lead in Resettling Syrian Refugees. And Melanie Nezer, top executive at Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society [sic!] did not rescind her public call in March, 2014: America, open your arms to Syrian refugees.

The corrupt insanity of America’s immigration racket is so great that in the refugee scam alone, in 2012, the leading countries of origination were Bhutan, Burma, Iraq, Somalia, Cuba, Dem. Rep. Congo, Iran, Eritrea and Sudan — now to be joined by Syria (more details here. Loon states such as Massachusetts, California and Minnesota spend tens of millions of dollars to provide illegal immigrants with free medical care — including organ transplants (Calif.) and $50,000 “penis pumps” (Minn.). Needless to say, free medical care is unattainable for working American citizens.

It’s impossible to itemize the parallel madness that exists in every single Western country, without exception. To pick one at random, Finland, at least 67,000 Muslims live in that country of 5.4 million, almost all of them Somali, Arab, Kurd, Turk, Iranian, Bosnian and Albanian “refugees.” Nevertheless Finland accepted about 600 such “re-settlers” in 2014, though it’s already home to affiliates of at least 14 Muslim terror groups, and was ranked by CNN in 2014 as the country with the highest percentage of Muslims who are fighting for ISIS in Syria.

News of the day: a Somali immigrant man with a non-semiautomatic ax has just attacked and hacked to death two men at a pub in Oulu. But the telling headline read “Police monitor social media for anti-immigrant sentiment following Oulu murders.”

And so it went in Whiteyland in just the two and a half weeks following January 7, 2015. But to see where it’s going, one needs to switch to a more panoramic lens.

Takuan Seiyo is a European-born American writer living in exile in Japan. For links to his previous essays, see the Takuan Seiyo Archives.

108 thoughts on “Oppression Instead of Admission, Part II

  1. I remember as a school child being taught history, and now with hindsight consider the thought naive, pondered why couldn’t those people see what was happening and why didn’t some people living then do something to prevent the consequences. Think the big events: Peloponnesian Wars, Fall of the Roman Republic, Byzantium’s Fall, Europe leading up to WWI and Hitler’s Germany. Even while learning Bible stories, especially about the betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus, I pondered why didn’t the participants, including their Roman masters, see they were committing murder and refuse to take part. But now living in disjointed times, I can understand the dynamics of a world “gone mad.” We are living in such times, where one gets the feeling of impotence and inability to take action that would change a predictably bad outcome. There seems to be some overwhelming evil and paralyzing or hypnotic force manipulating events. Will future generations have naive thoughts as I did when they read the history of our times?

    • Here’s a try at an answer to the “why” question:

      I think that self-described liberals imagine they’re morally and intellectually evolved above earlier generations, so they don’t need to draw lessons from history, and indeed should not. They believe that their own “progressive” instincts for niceness and tolerance are sufficient and superior to anything they might learn from the past — a time that was ruled by bigotry and ignorance, n’est-ce pas?

      They might perhaps notice that a certain sort of policy has been followed by disaster in the past, but they tell themselves, and firmly believe, that their own superior virtue and innate wisdom will naturally lead to a better result this time. Any failure will be blamed on reactionaries. Thus, when mass Muslim immigration into Europe causes the same problems that Islamization brings everywhere, those problems are blamed on a failure of some people to be nice and tolerant enough.

      • One could possibly use one word to cover all of this: fear. The more intelligent members of the Western middle class understand what’s inevitably coming and are vainly attempting to “feed the crocodile”.

        How else to explain the nauseatingly irrational statements described by Mr. Seiyo?

        • Fear of the bully. Being too intellectual about bullies does no one any favours. Deplorable as it may feel bullies have to be dealt with on their own terms as they are incapable of reason.

    • All right. I can’t resist. Please acquaint yourself with at least two tomes that may shed light on the state of the world today:
      “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis,” by Bat Ye’or
      and more importantly, “Revelation: The Distant Triumph Song,” by Siegbert Becker (and focus especially on chapters 12 through the end).

      And do trouble yourself to at least consider my recommendations.

      • Well, I’ve been wondering what I’m going to read next. I have, of course heard of the first one but not the second, so I’ll definitely check that out.

  2. Government action in your point #5 also serves to further exhaust the financial resources of the once great Republic.

  3. “It does protect the subject serfs from most acts of Muslim residents’ violence, but based as it is on the Liberal State’s principle of “non-discrimination,” its main effect is to cow and brutalize not the hostile invaders — pets of the ruling elites — but the invaded.”

    I would like to offer a different view. I think the security services are on the whole doing a valuable job and were it not for their thwarting of many planned jihad attacks our leaders would probably be clamouring to directly introduce sharia law if only to encourage a return to relative peace. Perhaps the security services are in effect buying us time and giving our movement a slim chance of maturing into something that can transform our societies.

    • Or, if a few more attacks ‘got through’ while we are still the majority the gov’t might be forced to address the actual problem.

    • Maybe you should check out what the FBI get up to with their ‘orchestrated’ terrorist events. Security Services serve the state – the status quo – not those who believe they are doing a good job.

  4. Brilliant – again. What a breath of fresh air Gates of Vienna is. Where is the MSM equivalent of this piece of writing? I don’t think it exists.

  5. “Neither blindness nor ignorance corrupts people and governments. They soon realise where the path they have taken is leading them. But there is an impulse within them, favored by their natures and reinforced by their habits, which they do not resist; it continues to propel them forward as long as they have a remnant of strength. He who overcomes himself is divine. Most see the ruin before their eyes; but they go on into it.” – Leopold von Ranke.

    (Quote at the beginning of Joachim Fest’s biography of Hitler.)

    • Former CO Governor Richard Lamm made a now-famous speech a few years ago on “How to Destroy America” which was a strong criticism of multiculturalism and diversity. Snopes is the only place I found on a short search that published a critique of it and his updated version of a few years later. It ‘s a chilling description what has been rapidly happening here and in Europe. Rather than post the link here, just go to Snopes and enter “Richard Lamm”. It will come up. Being a Democrat the Governor was soundly criticized for his remarks. By today’s Democrat/Left standards, he’d have long ago been excommunicated from the party.

  6. Well put Takuan, very well put indeed! Your expose would no doubt be considered sacrilege by those who have brought this insanity to us. In fact, your name would be posted on the ‘terrorist watch list’ if you still resided within the United States such is the inversion of 21st Century thinking from within the ‘Halls of Justice’ and other ‘government’ agencies.

    Tyranny is with us all in many guises, but compared to the population of the planet few are yet aware of it. I visit here to read good articles as you have presented here. Informative and highly thought out articles are so scarce within the print media that sites like this will always be a beacon to the like minded to visit. Many who do so I have now become familiar with.

    So, it is always a pleasure to visit here!

  7. A remarkable piece of observation and analysis.

    Of late I’m much taken with the Holmesian observation that if you eliminate the impossible, what is left is the truth, no matter how improbably. Thus, it is impossible to see in the actions of the Treason Class anything that evidences decency, good will, or patriotism. It is simply not possible for a human being rationally to advocate the inundation of his own people with millions of hostile, primitive, savage, and unassimilable foreigners for any decent purpose.

    What is left then is conduct that indecent and irrational — a purpose to destroy one’s own kith and kin and one’s own excellent civilization — even though these leaders will themselves eventually sink beneath the waves of dhimmitude and Islamic theocracy and caprice.

    It is improbable that Westerners could harbor such hatred of their own people and culture (and risk their own lives), but it can only be driven by hatred because that is all that is left to explain Western leaders’ actions. And it is a hatred that overrides even rational concern for one’s own and one’s family’s safety and well being.

    Rationality is especially to be discounted, as not one Western government advocates that refugees, asylum seekers, or economic migrants should be aided in place and only there. No. All that these governments consider is that the problems of these people can only be solved by importing millions directly into their own lands.

    This is the unassailable, civilization-destroying, “Western nations as exclusive safety valve for third-world pathology” Prime Directive.

    • In a democracy, the natural enemy of the ruling class is the native peoples. They are the only ones who can sack the rulers – via the ballot box. So naturally, in a democracy, the rulers hate their subjects and will seek to dis-empower them WITH EVERY SINGLE ACTION THEY TAKE.

      • “In a democracy, the natural enemy of the ruling class is the native peoples.”

        Having a ruling class is perhaps a clue that you don’t actually have a democracy.

        • By definition democracies have a ruling class. They are called the politicians.

          Democracy – another word for 50%+1 forcing 50%-1 to hand over their money, or else.

          • I live in the US. Politicians are the representatives of the people, not their rulers. Political power originates with the people. Tiny bits and pieces of that power are cautiously loaned to the government but always with the consent of the people.

            At least that’s how our Constitutional Republic was designed. No ruling class. Not sure where you are, your version of democracy may work differently.

            Of course things have run slightly amuck here in the former Colonies and we now discover that we do indeed have a ruling class. But that’s not by design or definition.

      • In the UK unfortunately it isn’t just the native peoples (the indigenous Brits) who get the vote. A whole load of immigrants and their progeny also get the vote. Although many of these are not supposed to vote in national elections there isn’t in fact any current mechanism which controls this. Some people even get two votes if they so wish. Students for example can register at their parent’s address and at their college address. No-one checks.

        Even people who have never left Pakistan in their lives have managed to vote in, for example, Tower Hamlets in London.
        We hardly have a democracy at all since aliens can manipulate the vote. There are even plans for electronic voting which would simply make the corruption even easier. The universalisation of the postal vote has already managed to do that in part – hence the votes from non resident Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. They all of course appear to live in the UK – 29 registered voters in one flat alone in Tower Hamlets. The actual occupants of the flat were astounded.
        The last Labour Government have all but admitted that they deliberately threw away border controls and encouraged mass immigration from the 3rd world in order to a) gain votes and b) slap the tories in the face. Non indigenous people are gaining a significant say in the future of the indigenous. I can only see one outcome from this and am not prepared to name that in public.

        • You have a right to free speech. I assume, like a lot of people you think civil war will be the outcome of the ever increasing islamification of the UK and Europe. Having an insight into an obvious future is not the same as instigating or advocating violence.

    • “…even though these leaders will themselves eventually sink beneath the waves of dhimmitude and Islamic theocracy and caprice.”

      I’m not sure these leaders actually believe this. Their behaviour is what I would call “extremely self-confident” and could be considered the result of a totally elitist upbringing. It reminds me a little of the story of Prince Siddhartha who was forbidden to leave the royal palace. When he finally did so he was horrified by the way people lived (and died) outside the palace.

      These people appear to know only their highly gentrified surroundings, and would most likely never mix with “the people,” let alone the immigrant portion of “the people,” preferring instead, to meet with the “representatives” of said immigrants, who are often elitist themselves; “fine fellows”.

      • Actually, I don’t think they are mistaken in their assumption that they will be spared.

        In countries that surrender peacefully to Islam, the elite dhimmis are allowed to retain many of their privileges and perks. They are needed as administrators, to keep order and suppress any uprisings against the new order by the dhimmi hoi polloi. This is a necessity, because Muslims are usually in the minority for an extended period after conquering new territory.

        The old elites function as the new nomenklatura in the hybrid Islamic/infidel society that persists for a while. Their haram behavior is ignored if it remains quiet enough. They can continue in their voluptuous lifestyle and their children will be spared the worst treatment by their new overlords.

        It will of course become much easier for them if they formally convert to Islam. Then they can be fitted seamlessly into the new ruling caste, albeit of a lower status — the will be considered inferior to the Arabs or the Deobandis of South Asia in perpetuity, no matter how many generations have been Muslims.

        After a couple of centuries, the old non-Muslim culture will have faded away, but the descendants of the ruling class in the jahiliyyah period will still be part of the ruling class.

        • That has been the historical pattern, yes, but it’s still a heck of a bad option.

          The words of the widow of Alan Paton are instructive and she spoke them when she finally decided to pack up and leave S. Africa because the level of crime is just too high.

          I gather she was not quite aligned with her late husband’s political views but she stayed on in S. Africa as many did. Hoping against hope, perhaps, though that is my inference.

          She observed that she and even her liberal, anti-apartheid friends before the fatal capitulation “just assumed” (my punctuation) that whites would be in charge no matter what changes took place. A heck of an assumption, I might add. However, notwithstanding my skepticism, it actually was a 100% valid assumption until, well, until it wasn’t. (H/t: Herb Stein.)

          A transition to Islam dominance (spit) might be all tea and strumpets and then it will be per time immemorial Allah caliphs and dhimmis. I say anyone who thinks that the eventual homeostasis will be all peachy and stuff is deluding themselves.

          And that transition period is going to be an itchbay.

          • It will be quite nice for the highest layers of the oligarchy, at least for a while. And anyway, most of them are cynical opportunists, and will probably go through the forms and convert. Why not? It isn’t as if they are sincere, believing Christians or anything. Joining a church and sitting in the pew every Sunday was just a political necessity. Like kissing babies and drinking coffee with the plebs at the local diner. And like saying the shahada will be in the Brave New World Order.

        • PS – I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. You didn’t say it would be peachy for anyone.

          I agree they are cynical and will have no trouble adapting to new Islamic realities were it to come to that. It’s easy to make a fire with a flint and dry grass once you get the hang of it.

        • The Baron has it right. Its no more complicated than the establishment just doing what the establishment does. Personal gain.
          The future he descries is just around the corner but Western Europeans will rise up and will not tolerate such treason. The first target of any reprisals would not be Islamic colonials but their enablers from within our own ranks.
          Again – that’s not a threat but a predictable outcome given the nature of Western Europeans, no matter how emasculated we have become recently.

      • I agree. They believe that will happen. And I doubt they consider that their lives will ever change in any respect as a result of anything they advocate or finance, except that they might eventually see socialism victorious and nativist missing links vanquished. Punishing domestic enemies is probably the number one goal.

        The Treason Class are clueless for the reasons you cite. And others. They won’t have immigrants to deal with so much as their new overlords. And it won’t be a matter of choice.

  8. Chilling autopsy of the PC/MC mummy that rules us, followed by a head-spinning cavalcade of its horrors. More and more, I think of the values I was raised with as “once upon a time.”

  9. Just today I was down at the State Farm Insurance office having new auto insurance policies written up. I was offered a significant reduction in the auto insurance if I just put these little “safe driving” boxes in our cars. That way State Farm could monitor where we go, how fast we drive and how many miles we put on the cars…
    Did anyone think 15 years ago that the gov’t would store every single phone call, email and internet click you make in a cavernous warehouse in the western desert? I am pretty sure that the State Farm data will soon be demanded by the gov’t and be made mandatory for all cars. If for no other reason than to enhance their ability to tax us.
    The gov’t will not stop because there is no one to stop them. Both sides of the aisle will squeal that this is for public safety and no harm will come of it. When I stop and think of the erosion in my privacy just over the last 15 years it truly is remarkable.

    • omg, Babs. You don’t live in an urban area, you’re not a teenager, what on earth do they want with that kind of information on *your* driving habits?? Creepy.

      I’m torn between laughing and screaming “HELP”…

      Pshaw, a lot they’d get from us. They’d log in the Baron’s weekly 3 mile trips to church. His bi-weekly grocery shopping. A mile each way every month to get our hair cut…oh, wait. We couldn’t do that little box. No way. Our seekrit rendezvous with Mossad (their agents wearing bib overalls and code-named Eugene, Bobby Jr. and D.J. and all with right cheek distended with chaw) would be revealed. Not to mention plans for the annual pancake supper on Fat Tuesday. That could become verboten – the grease from those sausages is so thick it’s probably radioactive.

      Maybe WalMart visits would cause premium increases?? I sure hope you shop correctly, Babs. The B plays a game with trying to increase his gas mileage on our 16 year old car. We’d never be assessed for unwittingly going over the speed limit, that’s for sure. I’ll bet that’s part of their creepy mission: to make sure you don’t speed…

      [Who knew? “Pshaw” passed the spell check.]

      • When I was done reading GOV this evening I clicked over to PJTV.com and, what was the first video in the line up????
        It was about California wanting to tax cars by mileage driven… And how would they go about doing this? Well of course there are these little black boxes that we will install in your car and make mandatory in new cars. And since we are doing this we might as well also record where you go and how fast you get there! And then we will have more data on you that we will store in the cavernous building out in the western desert to be used possibly at a later date.
        This is not a good trend and I ask anyone reading this to resist having a monitor put in your car no matter what the discount on your insurance might be.
        The insurance agent actually said to me that she would not allow this device to be installed in her car and that she had actually had the GPS disabled in her car and her phone. It is only a matter of time before the gov’t demands this info. for taxing purposes and/or surveillance.
        How did we get here? I think it is a synergy between third world unbridled immigration, the threat of major violence, the insatiable appetite of big gov’t to tax and control and technology.
        The gov’t will because they can and no one will stop them.
        Funny what one can learn when applying for car insurance!

        • How did we get here? Because a significant part of the political class consists of coercive utopians in principle, and most of the others find the exercise of power so gratifying that they persuade themselves that they have a moral obligation to do more of it. There are also those who, having acquired vast wealth and facing no real challenges, see the next logical step as acquiring power — which they describe benignly as using their wealth to do good, when the real reason may be that they think the status that comes with wealth entitles them to control others.

          The other part of the equation, of course, is why the rest of us allow it. Part of the explanation is that each new power-grab seems modest in itself, especially against the background of the accumulating power-grabs already completed, so objections can be painted as paranoid, tin-foil-hat ravings. Once the “paranoid” predictions have come true, that’s all forgotten and the game has moved forward a few more squares.

          Meanwhile, another generation has been conditioned to see it all as normal and good, while anyone looking back to the old days is just a reactionary who would surely be one of the sharks gobbling up the helpless little minnows that the government is now protecting so solicitously. (The metaphor is probably unscientific, but you get the point.)

          Another reason is the idea that it’s all being down within the framework of “democracy.” As long as we have elections and each of us can cast a vote, we shouldn’t complain about the outcome, because that means we’re opposing democracy.

          I’ve actually heard something like this from a relative, who argued that it’s misguided to complain about what the government does because “the government is us.” (He may have gotten that line from Rachel Maddow; I should have noted that it’s what Obama says when he wants “us” to shut up while he does to “us” whatever he chooses.) Elaborating, he said that everyone in the government was either elected or appointed by someone who was elected — so they’re simply acting on our behalf, right?

          Of course, Obama and his acolytes and defenders do not see things that way when some organ of government does something they dislike.

          The fact that our constitutional government was designed in part to prevent a majority of “us” from harming a minority of “us” holds little importance, it seems, for the majority Americans. It’s been obscured by the notion that our elected government (and unelected bureaucrats) should not be trammeled in the aim of doing good and effecting “progress.”

        • The idea of taxing by mileage is sound in itself, but more simply implemented through fuel duty.

    • Exactly the same insurance “black boxes” are now being offered here in England. Although, strangely, many people see nothing wrong with it… just a way to save money – right?

      • A couple of years ago, when I mentioned something to my agent about not driving much in my normal routine, he said I might be able to save money with a plan that’s rated by mileage driven. He said that I should record the mileage on my odometer, and then …

        Actually, he didn’t say anything more about how it worked, and I didn’t ask. I’m just continuing to pay a yearly rate.

        I like and trust my agent, and it’s possible that he’s uncomfortable about pushing something intrusive on his clients.

      • They are in most new cars today and will be a standard item in all of them soon.

        BTW all rental cars have trackers built into them now.

        On-Star in the U.S. is also a tracking system.

        Really scary are the cars with wireless internet and voice activation. The corporations and government can turn your car into a listening device as well.

        The only way to escape this Orwellian nightmare is by owning a older vehicle and keeping the cell phone either in a shielded case or pulling the battery. That’s right all cell phones are in effect a tracking device as well.

        The real scary thing coming up are voice controlled TV’s that are connected to the internet. The government will make sure there are back doors they can access to listen in on what you’re talking about in your own home.

        • Wow. So that bloke who “befriended” me at a cafe in King’s Cross railway station in London in 2000 wasn’t talking rubbish after all. He asked me if my TV spoke to me because his TV spoke to him. I was so glad that the departure of my train was called.

    • We are living in a De Facto Orwellian State, Oh yes we still have the facade of ‘democracy’ and a ‘republic with the rule of law’, however beneath the surface lies the surveillance state, which is denied by the state. Every electronic transaction,phone calls, text messages, and computer activity, travel on most major highways, and areas of big cities are under watch 24/7/365.

  10. It’s my birthday today so what a present by one of my favorite writers and thinkers.

  11. c.3. Stigmatizing, criminalizing and penalizing dissent…
    c.4. …opening the floodgates on Free Speech […] to […] the coarsest, most vulgar entertainment, porn and vicarious violence and manipulative, omnipresent advertising.

    Seems to me that every society has to allow (or promote) something and disallow something. I’m guessing you, like I, would prefer to live in a society that promotes the virtuous and disallows the vulgar. We’re living in a society that has that backward.

    But the eternal question is: What do you do with the dissenters in your society?

    Every move you make against them (no matter how tiny) is used as propaganda by those who back your dissenters. (“Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”)

    In the ’50s, we prosecuted people who professed communism. That began to look bad (“Have you no decency, sir?”), so we slapped our foreheads and said, “Right, right! Free speech! Forgot! Sorry!” And then came the ’60s. The hippies were out there on the fringe and it seemed only Jack Webb realized that they were an encroaching danger to civilization. Everyone else laughed them off as harmless. They weren’t. Now they’re in control.

    So what is the upshot of free speech in regards to the enemies among you?

    Do you say, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it”… until they grow into a huge movement? Then it’s “Hang on! We’ll allow you as long as you’re a silly little organization or two, but if you’re actually going to grow into something, then it’s time to do something!”

    Does this sound like I’m against free speech? You tell me. All I know is that there’s a process of destruction that your enemies will use against you, and if you don’t protect your culture, then you lose it. However, if you DO protect your culture, the enemies among you will paint you as a Nazi.

    What to do? (Seriously: I’m at a loss here.)

    • To answer your question let me first qualify as a plebe but… I have to tell you that after years of dinner parties where I allowed “friends” to violate my beliefs in the name of social progressive ideology and I stood quiet I decided to challenge them.
      Now, granted, this isn’t pleasant at a get together and you might not be invited back. However, how much abuse is pleasant to you? I became sick and tired of hearing pot shots about those that thought gov’t shouldn’t be everything to everybody and I spoke up.
      I can tell you that you only have to do it once and, if you are invited back, people will at least shut up. They might even think about what you said. At the very least they will temper their thoughts because they have suddenly realized that not everyone agrees with them. This might even enable them to listen more carefully the next time.
      There is an old quote about a woman living on the Upper West Side of NYC that remarked when Reagan was elected, and I paraphrase “How was he elected? I don’t know anyone that voted for him!”
      That’s because people like me are constantly put in situations where we just keep our mouths closed because we are “polite.”
      I’m too old to be polite anymore… I don’t have a job or a boyfriend riding on it. I don’t care if you like me.

      • This wasn’t just a “woman.” She ws a bona fide member of the Ruling Elite, Cultural Department: Pauline Kael, film critic for New Yorker magazine. because of her position in New York society, she didn’t just know “anyone” but hundreds of the most powerful, richest, most intellectuallu accomplished people in New York.

        In the industry I worked in, i.e. MSM/Entertainment, “people like me” — and based on my core beliefs and values, people like me — are referred to as “flyover people,’ i.e. not on either Left Coast. That’s a term used in formal strategy meetings.

        • Pauline Kael was a twit. IMHO.

          I much preferred Stanley Kauffmann.

          You may think I have some deep reason for this, but my real motive was that he bought me a glass of sherry once, and gallantly saved me from a bunch of academics who prunishly refused to drink at lunch after I had ordered my drink – being the first person the waitress asked, and going around that circular table, Mr K. being the second-last. Without his gallant intervention, I’d have been left to imbibe alone. He probably needed it more than I did.

          I was also the only student present at the lunch. The professor in charge of this event who’d invited Mr. Kauffmann up to Boston to speak to his film class and to the larger school audience must’ve thought I wouldn’t embarrass him (wrong again, Dr. Nolletti).

          I will never forget his wonderful tale of being in Marilyn Monroe’s bedroom…perhaps he was a good film reviewer because he loved stories.

        • TS

          Thank you for reminding me of the name of the woman Babs referred to. I was struggling momentarily, very clearly recalling it (and knowing at the time of the “How did Reagan get elected?”comment) that she was then a major cultural figure.

          It speaks volumes doesn’t it that Ms Pauline Kael, primo film critic for The New Yorker magazine, both didn’t know anybody that voted for Reagan ( I’m sure she was sincere in this) and, more importantly, was truly perplexed that Reagan had been elected?

          In 1980 I recall thinking two things of Kael after reading her infamous comment:

          1) Of course you don’t;

          2) This woman is like somebody walking into a general store in some tiny hamlet in western Arizona, say Gila Bend, and asking for pecorino and being utterly stunned that not only didn’t they know what she was referring to, much less stock that particular cheese, they didn’t even stock proper parmesan. How could the denizens of rural Arizona manage to live without access to at least two of the three better known Italian hard cheeses?

      • I am definitely with you on that. My friends are now quite leery about going anywhere near politics around me. We mostly talk pleasantries about beaver dams and water levels.

  12. How will PEGIDA fare if these laws come into effect?

    European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are to call for pan-European legislation outlawing antisemitism amid a sense of siege and emergency feeding talk of a mass exodus of Europe’s oldest ethnic minority. A panel of four prestigious international experts on constitutional law backed by the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) have spent three years consulting widely and drafting a 12-page document on “tolerance”. They are lobbying to have it converted into law in the 28 countries of the EU.

    The proposal would outlaw antisemitism as well as criminalising a host of other activities deemed to be violating fundamental rights on specious religious, cultural, ethnic and gender grounds.


  13. Simply brilliant writing from Mr Seiyo yet again.

    He mentioned Finland. Development of multicultural utopia started here later than in the neighboring country of Sweden. This was mostly due to the Cold war and Finland’s special status with the USSR.

    The direction the society is heading to is the same as well as propaganda and the measures taken against the dissidents. The difference is in degree. While Sweden is the extreme example of multicultural utopia, Finland is Sweden lite. Swedish influences spread through the Swedish-speaking minority and are imitated and implemented here but in a slightly milder way.

  14. what so good about T S writings is the “boost” i get from reading them.
    it almost qualifies as a high .. then it’s topped off by dymphna’s comments, the loyal GoV commenter’s & then the others who just discovered this place.
    myself .. i was in shock when i discovered this place. i think it was the reading of
    ‘surrender, genocide, or what ??’ i stopped reading (with a few exceptions) all other things & only read GoV archives for 2 months full time. i admit i
    am not intellectually qualified to be here after reading the genius that drips
    from these pages. but i’m still here .. i need the boost

    • I agree re reading T.S.

      The author of “Surrender”, etc., told me recently that he doesn’t think it will blow up as he’d originally thought. Not his words, exactly, but my paraphrase of what I remember him saying when I mentioned to him the effect his essays had on many of us…

      The intellectual “high” that proceeds from finding a writer who simply shines the light in the corner can be enlightening indeed. Rather than being stuck looking for whatever truth there might be under that corner street light (put permanently in place by your helpful government) one can use these more portable enlightenments to discover corollaries in other places, too. Good essays lead us to books, to writers, and to ways of thinking we’d not have discovered without an initial essay.

      The word “Enlightenment” has been so long in use to describe a moment, or a series of moments, that it’s original freshness has been dulled from rubbing up against the sandpaper of time and familiarity. I call such moments as you describe “that moment on the road to Damascus”…though we forget that Paul’s experience took him two years to process.

      A good essay or book changes how we see. Such was my experience with Fred Siegel’s book from last year —

      The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class

      That was a Damascus Road moment for me…and yet all he really does is turn the kaleidoscope to present a different view of what I *thought* I knew. Fortunately it’s a slim volume with a good binding. Thus, even when I’m not feeling well I can still hold it with little effort.

      Another one is Byron Roth’s incredible tome –

      The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature

      Thank heaven for Kindle! Notice the subtitle – a big clue that mass immigration does violence to what it means to be human. We are social animals born with an instinctive need to connect. The force of massive immigration is both wildly perverse and wickedly destructive of that inherent mammalian need. It’s one of the reasons we are seeing ever more evidence of a deepening cultural sink.

      • Re: Byron Roth – is this not built on the selfish gene theory, which says that one puts one’s own ‘genes’ (as the Dawkins creature defines the term) first, so you can visualise one’s willingness to tolerate other people as a series of concentric circles, with yourself in the centre, then your siblings, your cousins, your tribe, and yes, your race (this is the secularist belief), so that the atheist/secularist view totally undermines the expectation that everyone must hold hands with people from the other side of the globe who have none of your values, and are trying to do you in. This whole multiculturalist Weltanschauung preached by the secular left is based on absolutely NOTHING!

  15. Takuan, I often disagree with some point in your articles and comments. Can’t think of anything worth mentioning this time; my respect and admiration (hope that doesn’t sound pompous!) -and a deep sense of depression.

  16. “All past attitudes and deeds relative to any minority are judged by present standards.”
    The overriding question is, who is dictating these standards?

    “U.S. House of Representatives minority leader Nancy Pelosi announced that she would name the first Muslim lawmaker to House Intelligence Committee.”
    Now there’s a sentence ripe for the picking. So many possibilities for comment that I simply don’t know where to start.

    “It promises to further limit the supply of firearms. “Illegal” firearms, but that’s a red herring; it’s law-abiding Europeans who’ll find it more difficult to obtain legal firearms.”
    Haven’t seen too many questions asked regarding how the chaps in question got a hold of fully auto AKs and ammo to match. We can all bet our boots that in France (and most likely elsewhere in disarmed Europe) there’s plenty more gunsn’ammo where those came from.

    I’m always in the position of having to quote the late George Carlin, who said, “You know how dumb the ‘average person’ is? Well, think of this: 50% of the population is dumber than this.” But of course, the other 50% isn’t quite so dumb. However, as I mentioned above, there are other mental “quirks” that make up for this lack of dumbness. That leaves many of us fit to sit and stew…

    Then there’s the question of the effects of in-breeding among the “elites”…

  17. As English is not my native langage (this will probably show in the followings!), my interrogation is perhaps biaised by the french meaning of « liberal », apparently very different of the meaning in this text, as is evident when the author writes : « Liberal Society represents the triumphant victory of Marxism »
    This would be contradictory in French, who defines liberalism as the family of thought heralded by such authors as Adam Smith or Friedrich Hayek. So I suppose I must presume that in wrting « liberal », the author points at the conbination of state planification, compulsory welfare, and complicity with financial tycoons wbo anchor their monopoles on state regulations, which is the present state of the ex- “west” .
    This is not liberalism !
    It is true that some (all?) of the global financial and political rulers are willing, in order to save their dominance, to share it with mollahs and other dictators (China is still ruled by a militarist caste, in spite of the apparent « capitalistic » behavior of a very small but, yes, very smiling ,« upper crust »).
    A true free-market, free-choices, free-entreprise world would not surrender himself to alien domination, would not organize, as the author convincigly describes, alas, the doom of its own people.
    This is why this text sometimes disturbs me, for « liberalism-bashing » can easily be diverted, towards suicidal movements such as Syriza (we have ours in France, still marginal), whose success would greatly accelerate, and perhaps make final, the demise of a free Europe.
    So, perhaps it would be better to be very cautious in using some words such as « liberal » : this is too much of a shortcut for describing something which is neither economical self-ruling, nor political freedom. In French liberal (some use the word libertarian) groups, we use for that the formula « capitalisme de connivence ». Would « Collusion capitalism » fit ? This would protect against all misinterpretations.

    • You’re quite right about the terminology. Here in the United States, the “liberal” label has largely been co-opted by leftists who have a coercive agenda and who have no qualms about aiming to silence people who disagree with them.

      They might be libertine on certain “social issues,” but they also want to compel others to go along with their views and bear any costs that might result. They’ll insist that supporting gay marriage is the only “liberal” stance, even though it really isn’t a liberty issue but rather a question of what kind of relationships the whole society should be compelled to recognize and honor with a distinct status. If you don’t play along, you could lose your livelihood.

      I fully agree that those of us who are not coercive collectivists should stop granting the “liberal” designation to those who are. But there are people with very big microphones who have grown wealthy decrying the bane of LIBERALISM, making no distinction between the coercive and the libertine angles. They’re not about to admit they’ve been wrong, so it’s an uphill battle.

    • The manipulation of words, images, symbols and meanings is at the core of the Left’s strategy going straight back to Lenin and his Bolshevik retinue.

      Think about the “Dove of Peace” whose 10-meter likeness occupied one massive wall in Soviet Communist Party, Comintern and othee internationalist communist congresses for decades, while the head of that entire persuasion was psychopathic mass-murderer and cruel oppressor to some 200 million people. BTW, a member of the French Communist Party, one Pablo Picasso, conceived that symbol in 1948, for which he received the Lenin Prize…

      Think about what the Communists meant and current Socialists mean by “peace,” or why they no longer use “equality” but “equity,” and what they mean by “racism” and “islamophobia” and “social justice,” “environmental justice” etc.

      For that matter, why have we allowed a good, useful word, “gay,” to be hijacked by the sexually deviant? Why did I stop when using the word “deviant,” out of concern that this blog will be harassed by some forces of gayness? After all, “deviant” is just a statistical term, connoting standard deviation from the mean — but we let the other side load all kind of ressentiment malarkey onto it.

      Note further, that once leftoids leached all meaning from a hijacked word, they discard it and seize a new one to suck dry. “Liberal” eventually became a liability to them in America; they are now “Progressive.”

      • It started off with the creation of the “Bolshevik” faction of the Communist International.
        Despite representing less than 25% of the movement they named themselves the “majority”.
        And it’s gone on from there.

      • ‘why have we allowed a good, useful word, “gay,” to be hijacked by the sexually deviant?’

        The word “gay” was a code-word used by homosexuals so that they could refer to themselves whilst in the presence of the oppressors, without the oppressors knowing what the victimised minority were talking about. Some homosexuals despise the word “gay”, precisely because of its effete overtones.

        No doubt homosexuals and jews and christians and atheists will all suffer more victimisation in the coming decades, as the islamisation of the west continues. Plenty of you opponents of islam are now beginning to understand what it is like to be victimised. Not much sign that this shared experience has led to any greater humanity on your part though.

        People like me grew up with victimisation. Welcome to my world.

        • Going on your comment you are then homosexual?

          You write of ‘victimization’ yet you offer nothing by way of example of that ‘victimization’. Do you honestly believe that your own perceptions of life is automatically reflected in those who do not share your own particular outlook on life?

        • Joe,

          You raise an important point. I acknowledge the victimization –of racial minorities, Jews, women, too. I recognize and empathize with your pain. And I do not reject you because of your sexual orientation, never did.

          What I reject is the politization of the whole GLBT thing.and its alliance with Socialists… and Muslims, as incredible as it seems. I don’t want to be beaten over the head with these hard sacks filled with Mea Culpa wielded by the Libtards-in-Charge (I insist on a derogatory term in this case because they fit all the main definitions of insanity). I don’t want Dan Savage giving lectures in my local high school about the glories of anal sex between men, and I don’t want to see one more film about Savage Cracker Oppressing Soul Man, and I don’t want to se another TV interview of an AA-promoted female lesbian Inuit US Navy admiral.

          Enough! It’s time to let bygones be bygones. Either you decide that your sexual orientation is of no importance to us –we just don’ t want to hear about it–and you join us based on other wide common denominators, or else you have to remain with THEM, and then I have to treat you like them — the lizards from outer space or, as I call them, Pods (from “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”

        • Joe, being “victimized” is part of the human condition; from the beginning it’s all about security by excluding Other from the in-group.

          As two bloggers with a small website we’ve been ‘victimized’ by angry people who set up a campaign to de-link us from other websites…

          …the point being that people suffer from a sense of scarcity and act in ways to avoid being/feeling left out. The Judeo-Christian traditions have incorporated that understanding into their rituals and recognitions. It’s harder to do so in a secular culture, though. The end result is endemic bullying – sadly, those who have been victimized are among the first to turn the tables and victimize in return. I haven’t noticed a great kindness or sympathy flowing from organized LGBT groups toward those outside their groups. Same goes for feminists.

          I refuse to define myself by my gender or by my sexual orientation or by my race. And yes, I’ve been on the short end of the stick many times in my life. It’s just part of the territory that goes with being human.

          Nor will I let others call me a racist or anti-gay and have those accusations stick…I simply refuse the labels. My own heart and life experiences tell me more surely who I am than do others’ attacks. Name-calling always says more about the accuser than it does about the accused.

          If you can, walk in peace. Seriously. You will live longer and daily life will be more content when you give up the illusion that making the world safe for gay people will bring you any happiness.

        • C’mon Joe. Before “gay” the code was “camp”, as in “camp as a row of tents”, and there was also the more obscure “friend of Dorothy” – I never quite got that one as a code for homosexual, although I do understand the Wizard of Oz connection.

          You write:

          “Plenty of you opponents of islam are now beginning to understand what it is like to be victimised. Not much sign that this shared experience has led to any greater humanity on your part though.”

          Firstly, I would contend that the anti-Jihad movement is the best friend and ally the homosexual community in West could possibly have. I’d personally do just dandy under Sharia law; my select few homosexual friends would most certainly not. Select: because I know those to be people of upstanding character. Few: because I’m generally regarded by the gay community, covertly most of the time, as a disparaged and contemptible “breeder”.

          Secondly, whilst my own personal views on homosexuals were settled many decades ago, the fact that pioneering anti-Islamists Pim Fortuyn, Bruce Bawer and Douglas Murray were/are all gay, would cause even the most diehard “fag-haters”, if such people actually read and know of those three men, to contemplate whether their hatred is perhaps misplaced, ie there are bigger issues at stake. I very much doubt there are many GoV readers who are concerned by someone’s sexuality.

          Thirdly, homosexuals are not only the victims of heterosexuals: it goes both ways. I was, in my 20’s, forced out of a very high level career position by a predatory homosexual superior, who delivered an ultimatum to me as a condition of continued employment. I sought redress from the state agency with the charter of “anti-discrimination”. The staff at that agency were not the least bit interested in a gross injustice against a heterosexual male by a homosexual male. It was outside their implicit remit. They were positively hostile (and deeply fearful that I might go to the press about it) and due to that reaction I never took it beyond telephone calls because I could see it would be a futile process. The same agency would expend immense time and energy persecuting somebody over the mildest of anti-homosexual verbal slights. I later watched the head of that agency give appallingly dishonest character evidence in court on behalf of a notorious pedophile.

          I’m with TS on this: it’s the politicization of the whole LGBT thing that gets in my craw. And:

          “Either you decide that your sexual orientation is of no importance to us –we just don’ t want to hear about it–and you join us based on other wide common denominators, or else you have to remain with THEM [the Pods]”

  18. Actually, the in-breeding among the elites is aimed at perpetuating the elites. The paramount requirement is that you attend a top university: Ivy League/Stanford in the US, Oxbridge in the UK, one of the “Ecoles National” in France and so on. One of the key agenda items in attending such a university is that you find a suitable mate. In doing so, the high-IQ elites ensure that their issue will also be high-IQ (while denying vociferously that IQ is heritable). They also ensure that the postmoder n PC/MC/NWO ideology imparted in those universities is embedded in the breeding process of the next generation of the elites.

    Just check the process whereby Chelsey Clinton found her husband and the dynastic wedding held for her, courtesy of — if I recall — George Soros . BTW, Chelsey — a know-nothing, done-nothing leftoprincess — has had a $600,000-per-year job as “special correspondent” at the in-house organ of the Obama/Clinton machine, NBC Television. When she tired of that, she started “giving speeches,” at $75,000 per speech. I calculated roughly that what this deep thinker whose advice should be sought out by young and old alike makes per hour, is what a combat officer, rank of Major, makes per year, after 7 years of combat experience.

    • Didn’t knew that ! Ah, the “rêve américain” !
      Well, we also have that kind of scam in France, albeit at much more lower costs (still on the taxpayer, though).

    • Ah, but poor Chelsea said she tried really hard to care about money, and she just couldn’t …

  19. Try to get a copy of this book: The socialist phenomenon, 1980, by I. R Shafarevich. Self destruction by socialism has happened thousands of years ago.

  20. This is a truly great essay Takuan, thank you. It got my old grey matter working the way it does when I read one of Daniel Greenfield’s articles. The starting point with Lawrence Auster – one realizes what a loss to the CJ his death was.
    I believe that the beginning of the hollowing out of the West, was from the end of WW2, it gave a massive opportunity those who sought to change our societies.
    As Enoch Powell said:
    “At the end of a period of disorder, when previous institutions and habits have been shaken or broken, the minds of men are prepared for changes and innovations which at other times the strength of custom, the hostility of vested interests and the general inertia of an existing condition would render impossible.”
    The progressive elite started this process then, and they haven’t stopped yet.
    Thanks again to you, and to GoV for posting it.

    • Patrick, start with Woodrow Wilson, his League of Nations concept and his 14 point plan for peace in Europe during World War One. The second war was a direct result of the first, the cold war came about because of the second war etc. Much of what is now history was once just a plan.

      • Much of what is now history was once just a plan.

        And sometimes they made the “plan” eat steroids – Soviet-style communism.
        Other times the plan took poison – Thousand Year (give or take a century) Reich.

        Don’t forget bureaucracies – those plans that grow wings of their own and waddle fly away with the proceeds.

        I want a Chinese-style Five-Year Plan to return us to the status quo ante, but what I want violates the laws of historical progression. Maybe Obama will wave his magic wand.

        • Plans are one thing, but the outcomes are quite something else – generally speaking.

          And on that thought, one must consider that the ideology of National Socialism was not defeated along with the German military machine following WW2 (another plan?) – One only needs to look over the surrender documents to see that only the German military and not the ‘government’ were to surrender – and that the ideology escaped via many sources and countries in sympathy with what was then Nazi Germany. Particularly Brazil and Argentina which were then, and probably still are going on their own records, hot spots of National Socialism, while the Nazified German manufacturing base and what was left of the ‘German government’ that the Allies kept intact to facilitate the ‘return to normal’ of Germany, carried on as if nothing was really out of place.

          ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we try to deceive’. I think that quote is correct?

    • Golly, another masterful insight from the “evil” Enoch. I’ve cut and pasted that quote for future reference. Thank you.

  21. Just my own thoughts.

    George Orwell’s prophecy of Big Brother speech restriction (thought speech) is more virulent than ebola at the moment. Freedom of Speech seems to be losing.

    Enoch Powell spoke about “rivers of blood” and the black man. As far as I know he didn’t highlight mohammedism, whereas Churchill did, far earlier. Did Powell realise it was islam that is the problem?

    • Powell never used the phrase “rivers of blood” in his 1968 speech in Birmingham, although it seems everyone now knows it by that name now.
      Churchill may have been aware of the threat Islam presents, but he did nothing to prevent its spread to the U.K. The British Nationality Act (1948) which Atlee’s government created, meant that, potentially, British citizenship could be taken by over a billion people throughout the world. This was the start of large scale immigration into Britain; Churchill got back into power in 1951, yet he did nothing to reduce or halt the flow of immigrants or repeal the legislation.
      Powell had served in India during WW2 and spoke Urdu at interpreter level; I think he would have viewed Islam as part of a much larger, future problem caused by mass immigration. It would be fascinating to have his opinion on the present situation we face in the West, as intellectually he was on a level several degrees removed from most people; although I think “I warned you so” would feature in it somewhere.

      • Yes, just for the record, Enoch Powell, a Professor of Classics, was quoting Virgil, “I see the River Tiber foaming with blood”.
        It was mass serial killer Che Guevara who spoke of “Rivers of blood”.
        Perversely enough the tabloids have done their own cut-and-paste to make Enoch more sensational.

  22. I agree with everyone: a brilliant essay.

    As I recall, mass Muslim immigration into Europe originally began as a way of importing cheap labor (laying aside colonial guilt). That need has long been superceded although leftists still pay lip service to the idea that 3rd world immigration is necessary to support an aging population–an absurd argument of course as the indigenous population is instead supporting the 3rd world immigrants.

    In this connection I am very interested in following how Japan will handle their aging population. They are not allowing mass immigration. Apparently they are putting robotics on a fast track. I’ll be interested to see how this works out for them and I certainly wish them well.

    • Japan so far is not handling very well their aging population problem. They have been in recession since the early 1990’s and the days of full employment are now a thing of the past. Homelessness is now a huge problem in Japanese cities.

      Because of the aging population, whole villages have become ghost towns and generally, if you travel outside of the main urban centers, you find an increasing average age of the citizenry.

      Japan is not any more educated than the West with respect to Muslims. There are mosques in many cities in Japan and they have a growing number of Muslim immigrants, too.

      I do not know why the rumor has been spread on this website that in Japan, Islam was “outlawed”. There is simply no such thing.

      • I don’t believe that this ‘website spread such rumors. Yes, such an item spread around the Web, based on an article by some “rabbi.” I was consulted by some and shot it down immediately.

        That was easy; I’d lived for years about 1 km in opposite directions: one to the opulent, Saudi-financed Tokyo Sunni Center, and the other the Shia center, affiiated with the drab Iranian embassy. On the other hand, I do not believe that “there are mosques in many cities in Japan.” Muslim cultures’ norms of behavior are so far removed from what’s acceptable in Japan that, if and where they are suffered, it’s not gladly. The number of Muslim immigrants is quite small too; mainly Iranians in Ueno. There are also some Indonesian foreign students and such, but the numbers are insignificant.

        Yet, the Japanese are amazingly naive and ignorant about Islam, as they are about most non-Far East things except the large American or European pop, fashion and other commercial trends. But in immigration matters, we could do no better than follow their example.

      • Who on this website said that Islam is “outlawed” in Japan? I didn’t say that and I don’t remember anyone else saying it either. About what “rumors” do you speak?

        My comment was that Japan is not welcoming massive third world (including Muslim) immigration. I don’t know what the outcome is and would like to know more.

  23. Funny thing about Japan and immigration, when I was a kid Japan had about 70-75 million people and their birthrate has always been said to be below replacement level by those who ‘know’.
    Yet now in 2015 their pop. is 127-130 million. Something doesn’t add up there; oh well, I was always poor at arithmetic!
    It seems to me the Japanese are at least attempting to do the right thing in an already overpopulated world which ‘experts’ keep telling us needs more people–there must (they say) always be growth; but if one follows that theory to it’s logical (or illogical) conclusion, the result is chaos, starvation, and a poisoned world with most animal species extinct.
    A wonderful essay Mr Seiyo, I’ve enjoyed your writing since I inadvertently stumbled on to “The bee and the lamb!” I wish you a long, healthy life!

  24. I’ve read an article or comment in the last day or so, I thought on GoV but can’t find it; maybe Center for Security Policy? Anyway it contained a brilliant and useful insight, so I hope the Baron will allow me to mention it here.

    The premise was that if attempts to introduce, or impose, western-style democracy in tribal or theocratic societies generally fail, or are at best a partial success, then how could importing people from such societies into democratic countries be expected to work? A useful argument to make to the next multiculturalist you meet.

    • I like that. If Western cultural overtures into Afghanistan, for example, are utter and complete failures, then we should make sure that Muslim overtures into the West are failures.
      I know that was not your point, valid as it was.
      My point is this: the overtures that by dint of murder and atrocity gain the upper hand must be resisted, at any cost.
      Our overtures bring sanity and compassion to their homelands — which they use to annihilate us, provided we give them an equal footing either in their homeland or in ours.
      It’s very much like letting Anacondas into an enclosed pen of bunnies.

      • “at any cost” – I think not. I don’t want us to give up our freedoms to defeat Islam. I think “at any cost to the invaders” would be better.

    • There I something else, too. Michael Scheuer (ex-CIA and gadfly) repeats that we should pull out of the Middle East and leave them to kill each other. Indeed, Muslim societies are their own worst enemies — and were unique in that, along with Africa, until whitey got this bovine encephalitis 50 years ago.

      These poor soldiers, heroes, people like Chris Kyle, make the utmost sacrifice believing the official line that “we should fight them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here.” But we fight them over here only because of our ghastly sick immigration and asylum laws that bring them over here.

      The fight should have consisted not in invading and destroying the balance of violence and oppression that keeps their countries together, but in denying them physical access to all Western Countries and reversing the policies that brought and still bring them here.

      Moreover, I blame the Rulers for the whole eruption of “Islamophobia” and the worsening of a certain modus vivendi, in spots even friendship, we had with Dar-al-Islam roughly in 1800 -1960 when the West was strong, sane, confident and Muslim-resident free. Hope I can elaborate on this soon.

      • Not just Africa; for example, Jared Diamond notes that before the colonialists got to Papua New Guinea, the people were killing one another in tribal wars at a proportionately higher rate than twentieth century Europeans! -and that they have been grateful for being forced to stop.

        Not at all PC, and at the risk of being flippant, makes one query the Starship Enterprise’s directive not to interfere with the cultures they found (will find?)

        • Not to speak of Mesoamerican Indians and their custom with captives from different tribes… The Conquistadores, unwholesome bunch though they were, stopped that one, too..

        • Interesting note to that comment Mark, was when the Japs invaded Papua/New Guinea during WW2 when many of the ‘colonialists’ – generally Aussies in positions as government officials, magistrates in charge of native police, plantation holders, gold prospectors, store keepers etc, were evacuated by ship and aircraft to leave the native population to their own devices. Many of the tribes then left to themselves immediately reverted to cannibalism, head hunting and intra-tribal rivalry to secure women and food.

          ‘Civilization’ and its trappings is a very thin veil indeed.

  25. “We have to condemn publicly the very idea that some people have the right to repress others. In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

  26. “Je suis Charlie Martel.” — Good Lord this is EXACTLY what came into my mind when I saw those stupid “Je suis Charlie Hebdo” signs. Charlie Hebdo was an unarmed victim-in-waiting. I promise you, you [epithets who engage in unnatural acts with domesticated animals], that ain’t MY Dad’s son!

Comments are closed.