The following essay by Nick McAvelly was originally published at Patriot’s Corner in a slightly different form.
A Reality Check
by Nick McAvelly
“It is impossible to engage in intellectual discourse with National Socialism because it is not an intellectually defensible program. It is false to speak of a National Socialist philosophy, for if there were such an entity, one would have to try by means of analysis and discussion either to prove its validity or to combat it. In actuality, however, we face a totally different situation. At its very inception this movement depended on the deception and betrayal of one’s fellow man; even at that time it was inwardly corrupt and could support itself only by constant lies.” (The White Rose, 2nd pamphlet.)
“If it were possible for any nation to fathom another people’s bitter experience through a book, how much easier its future fate would become and how many calamities and mistakes it could avoid. But it is very difficult. There always is this fallacious belief: ‘It would not be the same here; here such things are impossible.’ Alas, all the evil of the twentieth century is possible everywhere on earth.” (Solzhenitsyn, A. The Gulag Archipelago, Harvill Press, p. x)
“For the thing I greatly feared has come upon me,
And what I dreaded has happened to me.
I am not at ease, nor am I quiet;
I have no rest, for trouble comes.”
(Job 3:25-26 NKJV)
A multicultural utopia is a theoretical and practical impossibility that can only be defended using fallacies and lies. Each and every time a terrorist attack is carried out by devout Muslims yelling out the takbir, the assertion that all cultural values are compatible is refuted. Yet some people maintain that Islam is a religion of peace and its doctrines and practices are compatible with our own traditional Judeo-Christian heritage, because after all, not all Muslims are terrorists. That may be true, but it is completely irrelevant.
A categorical proposition is a statement which relates members of one group to members of another. It has a subject term and a predicate term, and it can be expressed in the following standard forms: All S are P, No S are P, Some S are P and Some S are not P.
One attribute of categorical propositions is quantity; this refers to whether the proposition makes a claim about every member of the class denoted by the subject term. The propositions ‘All S are P’ and ‘No S are P’ both say something about all members of the class denoted by the subject term S, so those propositions are said to be universal. The propositions ‘Some S are P’ and ‘Some S are not P’ say something about one or more (but not all) members of the class denoted by the subject term S, so those propositions are said to be particular.
Another attribute of categorical propositions is quality. A categorical proposition claims that some or all the members of the class denoted by the subject term are also members of the class denoted by the predicate term, which is affirmative, or that they are not, which is negative. So the propositions ‘All S are P’ and ‘Some S are P’ are affirmative and the propositions ‘No S are P’ and ‘Some S are not P’ are negative.
The four standard form categorical propositions have traditionally been referred to using the first four vowels of the Roman alphabet. The universal affirmative proposition (All S are P) is called an A proposition, the universal negative (No S are P) is an E proposition, the particular affirmative (Some S are P) is an I proposition and the particular negative (Some S are not P) is an O proposition.
The logical relationship between the four standard form categorical propositions can be shown using the square of opposition:
If someone says that not all Muslims are terrorists, they are asserting that, where the subject term is “Muslims” and the predicate term is “terrorists”, the A proposition (All S are P) is false. What are we to make of this?
The A proposition – All S are P
As we can see from the square of opposition, the A proposition “All Muslims are terrorists” is a contradictory of the O proposition “Some Muslims are not terrorists”. Since they are contradictories, both propositions cannot be true at the same time, and both propositions cannot be false. So if the A proposition “All Muslims are terrorists” is false, then the O proposition “Some Muslims are not terrorists” must be true.
The O proposition — Some S are not P
So whenever we hear anyone saying that not all Muslims are terrorists, we need to remember that logically speaking, all they are saying is that some Muslims are not terrorists.
That does not refute the I proposition: Some Muslims are terrorists.
The I proposition: Some S are P
So if you switch on the TV and see Muslims killing an unarmed British soldier on the streets of London, shooting kids outside a school in Toulouse, killing a soldier in Ottawa, or murdering people in their Paris office for drawing some pictures they didn’t like, you can believe your own eyes. People are dying in terrorist attacks all around the world, and Muslims are doing the killing.
After the next Islamic terrorist attack, if anyone tells you that the perpetrators could not have been real Muslims because not all Muslims are terrorists, remember that what they are saying is profoundly irrational. That is to say, they are attempting to deceive you. We can expect nothing less from the traitor class and their lackeys in the old-fashioned media, because like the doctrines of National Socialism, their Weltanschauung is built upon betrayal and deceit. Like the Nazis, the new traitor class can only defend their radical social engineering project by lying about it.
And this irrelevant nonsense about not all Muslims being terrorists is the least of it. The traitor class will do everything in their power to prevent the truth about Islam from being openly discussed. They believe they have the final solution to the question of how people ought to live in this world, and they will not hesitate to sacrifice the reputation, livelihood or health of anyone who threatens that final solution with the truth.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a man whose opinion is worth far more to us today than anything that Cameron, Clegg and Miliband will ever write or say in their entire lives, has told us what the consequences of this will be.
“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.” (Solzhenitsyn, A. The Gulag Archipelago, Harvill Press, p. 81)
We need to take Solzhenitsyn’s warning seriously. If we do not recognise evil for what it is, and allow politicians to lie to us about the motives of men like Mujahid Abu Hamza and Ismail Ibn Abdullah when they perpetrate evil acts inside the borders of Great Britain, then as Solzhenitsyn told us, we are “ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations”. If the traitor class have their way, no one in the new multicultural Britain will be able to take a stand against evil. For the traitor class, there will only be appeasement and privilege. Young people will come of age believing that hypocrisy and deceit will bring them prosperity. And those of us who understand what is happening to our country will be silenced and forced into obscurity.
As Solzhenitsyn pointed out, “It is going to be uncomfortable, horrible to live in such a country!”
Well done. Here in the Land of Liberty, I find myself captivated in the dialogue between “reporters” and federal spokeswomen. Choosing attractive, female progressives for these positions is a master stroke. The pretense surrounding these circuses of “news conferences” is of particular interest to me. There’s a number of dances that each side engages in prior to the actual question being asked, and there’s never any sort of uncomfortable pressure applied to these women. These “reporters” are quite content filling out their notepads with nonsense, as if quantity is the key component to a great job. Where is this going? The same direction as mentioned above – the younger generations will accept this ruse and normal and lose interest in their duties as citizens.
The problem with your pretty graph is you are trying to apply “Western logical thinking” to an Oriental ideology. If you were to take those diagrams to a Madrass in Pakistan, they would say Islam is a religion of peace but also fully support suicide bombers, terror attack etc in the name of Islam and see no inconsistency. It’s all in the worldview, peace is only available to the ummah.
Incorrect. The article is aimed specifically at one of the many lies and fallacies that are used by Western politicians and so-called journalists to avoid dealing with what is happening to our societies. It also touches upon what the long term consequences will be to our societies if this state of affairs is allowed to continue. Think of logic and reason as an Iron Dome and the lies and fallacies of the traitor class as Kassam missles. We have to shoot them down one at a time. What I’ve done here is provided a fully functioning tracking system that will allow anyone to lock on to this particular Kassam & take it out.
ill see your Job 3 and raise you an Isaiah 5:
20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight.
22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine
and champions at mixing drinks,
23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
but deny justice to the innocent.
24 Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw
and as dry grass sinks down in the flames,
so their roots will decay
and their flowers blow away like dust;
for they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty
and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel.
25 Therefore the Lord’s anger burns against his people;
his hand is raised and he strikes them down.
The mountains shake,
and the dead bodies are like refuse in the streets.
Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away,
his hand is still upraised.
26 He lifts up a banner for the distant nations,
he whistles for those at the ends of the earth.
Here they come,
swiftly and speedily!
27 Not one of them grows tired or stumbles,
not one slumbers or sleeps;
not a belt is loosened at the waist,
not a sandal strap is broken.
28 Their arrows are sharp,
all their bows are strung;
their horses’ hooves seem like flint,
their chariot wheels like a whirlwind.
29 Their roar is like that of the lion,
they roar like young lions;
they growl as they seize their prey
and carry it off with no one to rescue.
30 In that day they will roar over it
like the roaring of the sea.
And if one looks at the land,
there is only darkness and distress;
even the sun will be darkened by clouds.
any of this sound eerily familiar?
I have read that passage many times, my friend. I even had a sweatshirt made up on Zazzle which had the Sderot logo on the front with “Isaiah 5:20” printed right below it – & wore that while I was out and about a lot. I got a few dirty looks, but no one every dared to challenge me – my hope was that someone who didn’t know the passage & didn’t know what the logo was would go home and google it & maybe learn something useful. Anyhow – yes, I know that passage.
This essay is good but the truth is even simpler.
Make yourself a list of the 50 or 60 Islamic countries and spend a few minutes weeping for what your land may become.
You know that and I know that. The problem we face – and it has become clear that it is a problem that must be dealt with before we do anything else – is that Western politicians and so-called journalists lie their faces off when they are pretending to discuss Islam, Islamic terrorism, jihad, etc.
So we can’t just present out arguments & expect them to be accepted as if everyone in the West is starting from the same position. We are going to have to do the hard, tedious work of exposing the lies and fallacies of the traitor class so that their lies carry no more weight, and anyone who gives voice to these lies and fallacies will thereby be discredited.
Obviously, what we’ve been doing isn’t working. We are going to have to explode their lies one at a time – this is a war of attrition. As I said earlier in the comments, this article wasn’t written to show how clever I am, or to impress any GoV readers, and it certainly wasn’t written just for fun. It has a specific purpose. If we imagine logic and reason as an Iron Dome, and the lies and fallacies of the traitor class as Kassam rockets, what I have done is provide a fully functioning tracking system so that we can all lock on to this one, particular type of Kassam and shoot it out of the sky.
If you see where I’m coming from …
If anyone is interested in developing their very own Iron Dome system that can shoot down the Kassam rockets being fired at us by the traitor class, check out The Cameron Analysis on Amazon. It’s an essay that reverse engineers David Cameron’s statements on the subject of Islam & shows that his argument doesn’t take him where he wants to go. We really are going to have to face up to the fact that what the CJ movement has been doing isn’t working, so we’re going to have to take a different approach. We have to start going after specific individual politicians & taking out their lies and fallacies one by one. It’s a war of attrition – if we want to make any progress here at all, then we’re going to have to knuckle down and just do it.
Logical overkill. You’re bringing in the B-52 bombers of Aristotelian logic against the weak proposition “Not all Muslims are terrorists.” You’ll win the argument in a room full of philosophers but…
You can’t defeat propaganda with logic. You can only defeat it with counter-propaganda or bullets.
For what’s ahead we need courage not logic.
We need both. And we need to destroy the lies and fallacies of the traitor class, one at a time if that’s what it takes, with the biggest, baddest intellectual hardware the human race has ever developed – we need to go all out, and make sure that anyone who tries to use this proposition to avoid talking about Islamic terrorism is bombed to absolute buggery.
If this is an effective weapon that will effectively torpedo this particular proposition – then that’s the weapon to use. A weapon can’t be too effective – if it explodes the other party’s argument and totally discredits anyone else who tries to use it in the future – then it’s doing its job.
And btw – we all know how the other side, as you say, use propaganda and lies – I said in the article that this is all they can do – and they’re prone to come after anyone who exposes their – look at Steve Emerson recently, one slip of the tongue and BANG – they were all over him.
So we need to give them nothing when we engage with their favorite lies and fallacies – we need effective and robust intellectual weapons so the enemy has absolutely no “wiggle room” to escape, or to pick away at our counterarguments – we need to make sure that when we open fire, our aim is sure, and we hit exactly what we are aiming at.
And if we find a weapon that can do the job – which can lay waste to the enemy and leave no one alive for a 5 mile radius – we need to use it.
PS – It’s Boolean logic. Note the modern square of opposition.
And I know it’s a weak proposition. You know it’s a weak proposition. But we keep hearing it.
So it needs to be destroyed & if a Boolean-52 bomber will do the job then that is exactly the weapon to use.
Like I said, what we’ve been doing clearly isn’t working, so we need to do something else – if you think that “propaganda and bullets” will work then write your own article explaining how and why that will work. In the real world. Meanwhile, I have provided you with a logical weapon that will lock on to a specific type of Kassam used by the intellectual terrorists of the traitor class & let you blow it out of the sky. You objection to using it appears to be that it works exceptionally well. Eh … that’s the whole point of a weapon, to decimate the enemy & reduce his weapons to melted cheese. So while we’re waiting for your grand “propaganda and bullets” scheme to come together .. you know, in the meantime … let’s do that then.
“PS – It’s Boolean logic. Note the modern square of opposition.”
When it comes to the square of opposition I always like to give Aristotle credit seeing how he came up with it. Not to take anything away from the modern square and Boole’s refinements.
“if you think that “propaganda and bullets” will work then write your own article explaining how and why that will work. In the real world.”
I don’t plan on writing any articles. I’m a poor writer and I’ve got no magic solutions. Either the West grows a backbone or it doesn’t.
I’m just going by a cursory read of history as to what motivates men to fight. It’s hardly ever rational persuasion. In life and death fights it’s faith, courage, and bullets that are the essentials needed for men to go to war. Logic just isn’t the tool for that job.
Just my opinion. I think we’re on the same side, we just disagree about the value of rational argument in a fistfight.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree that it’s about time we all started to grow a pair and take on the traitor class. We need to start tackling them, exposing their lies and fallacies, and destroying them – their careers, their credibility, their reputation – whenever possible.
However, you can hardly walk up to the likes of David Cameron and chin him. It’s not possible and it’s not effective. And you can hardly challenge Nick Clegg to a “fist fight” out in the car park either. Again – it’s not possible and it’s not effective.
No matter how gratifying it might be to send Mr. Clegg to the nearest casualty, where he could wait for 4 hours before having a doctor from the third world who doesn’t speak English stitch his face back together.
The Iron Dome system is more sophisticated than the Kassam rockets that are launched against Israeli citizens in Sderot, but that doesn’t mean Israel shouldn’t have developed it, or now that they have, they shouldn’t use it.
So if there is a weapon available that can – and does – destroy just one type of the incoming Kassam missles fired by the anti-intellectual terrorists of the traitor class, then we need to start using it.
Of course it is going to be more “sophisticated” than the Kassams. One of the reasons they fire their rockets at us is because they know it takes so much effort to come up with a system that can knock them out.
Still, we need to develop that Iron Dome system – we need to start developing more anti-missle missles as well – because we need to start shooting each of the lies and fallacies of the traitor class out of the sky.
It’s long overdue.
And as I said earlier, just look at how the enemy responds whenever he is challenged – they go after the person who challenged them, they try to change the subject, etc etc …
We need to be aware that the enemy will try to come after us if we challenge them.
So we need weapons that are impervious to their counter-measures. We need to develop a whole battery of anti-missile missiles of various types, to take out the various types of Kassam that are used by the enemy.
This one is based on cold, hard logic and it cannot be diverted or turned back around by the enemy – once it locks on to its target, the incoming Kassam is a goner.
You’re absolutely right. On an individual basis no one can do this. What is troubling however is that a whole generation of free born men, from a history they seem to have forgotten, have allowed the likes of David Cameron, Angela Merkel, Barack Obama and the EU to pacify them into submission.
We get the government we deserve. I don’t see westerners, as a whole, rising up to reclaim the rights that are, in broad daylight, being taken from them. Look at the various uprisings around the world in just the last few hundred years and then ask yourself why are modern westerners, after all they’ve so painfully won, now behaving as sheep to the slaughter.
“So if there is a weapon available that can – and does – destroy just one type of the incoming Kassam missles fired by the anti-intellectual terrorists of the traitor class, then we need to start using it.”
Yes, I agree fully. We need to constantly develop and maintain a military and technological advantage. But the absolutely most essential weapon to our survival, and the one that we’re obviously lacking, is the will to unashamedly fight for ourselves.
It’s faith and courage that we need.
Sorry Nick, the “You’re absolutely right. On an individual basis no one can do this. ” line was meant as a response to your statement:
“However, you can hardly walk up to the likes of David Cameron and chin him. It’s not possible and it’s not effective.”
Copy and paste error on my part.
We get the government we deserve.
Before the quiet takeover of western governments by an empowered bureaucratic elite, I believed this. I don’t any more.
Nor do I yet see a way to “rise up and reclaim our rights”. Those vias (dolorosa) are still lost in the murk. Greek has a good word for the ‘right’ time: kairos (as opposed to chronos, the chronicling of time passing). The closest we can come is “timely”. It is not yet the right time for reclaiming because ALL rights have not been yet lost. People rise up when there is nothing left to lose…and people are kept in line with “nice little pension you have there. Wouldn’t want to see anything happen to it…”
In Greece, those pensions are dying and the Greeks are becoming restless. Fat lot of good joining the EU did when Greece’s statist rigor mortis was already setting in. But right now they are isolated in their misery. Critical mass has yet to be achieved but our rulers are working on it.
Irish people rose up and fought against inclusion in the E.U. but it did no good. They were made to vote until “Yes” was reached. IIRC, that was the first time I heard “we have to vote it in to find out what’s in it” (the Lisbon Treaty). It didn’t take long for Democrat senators in the U.S. to learn that chant and use it to pass criminal legislation…
The UK was promised a vote on whether or not to join the EU but the promisers lied – the UK joined and the people be damned.
When I tried to find a wiki to list the nations who refused, I could find only a very misleading page that never mentioned ANY initial dissension or refusal. But at least there is a Daily Mail report on Ireland’s troubles – from 2008:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054732/EU-begins-secret-drive-force-Ireland-vote-rejected-Lisbon-Treaty.html
Now everyone knows that “EU” really means Germany. Period. The others are for show. In reality, the EU is a soviet, with acquiescent satellites who live in fear that when the currency collapses, so will their “peace”.
Right now, Merkel and Putin are dealing while everyone averts their eyes. The oil. Our betrayals always come down to that.
Does anyone recall when they first heard of The Lisbon Treaty? My introduction to it came via an email exchange with Fjordman. I was stunned by his news. The new EU “constitution” had verbiage so thick I was soon lost. Fj pointed out the ugly parts, the ones essentially ending free speech. The draconian measures the state could take against a citizen were bizarre and unbelievable.
But that was before I saw what a judge could do to a dissenter – i.e., in the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff where the judge arbitrarily and without consulting anyone or any law, simply raised the level of ESW’s “crime” to a more severe level. It used to be that judges enforced the law. In the EU, they can make up laws now and the ability to fight back is limited to how much money you can raise to fight back.
Somewhat more than half of this link reasonably hews to reality:
http://eutruth.org.uk/
Because there is so much brazen evil in the world, paranoia is a reasonable response to its presence.
The US has a very simple Constitution. Allowing for antiquated language differences, a 12 year old can understand its basic principles. But our President doesn’t like our Constitution, even though he has sworn twice to uphold it. His lawlessness could be stopped, but who will bell that cat? No one. Certainly not the Supreme Court. Not anymore.
The whispers in some corridors of America about the cave-in of the Supreme Court when faced with some of the unconstitutional aspects of ObamaCare…those whispers are asking how the Obama administration got to the Chief Justice. His volte-face when ObamaCare came before The Court was a moral shock…but then, that’s how Obama step-stoned his way up the electoral ladder: by, at each juncture, destroying the reputations of his opponents. By the time he got to Romney, all hope of a genuine opponent was gone.
The EU’s Lisbon Treaty and America’s Affordable Care Act are both written in dense impenetrable language. Deliberately and with malice aforethought. The evil nature of bureaucracy is laid bare in both those documents.
When the global demographic implosion happens – a mathematical certainty that even China and the UN believe – there will be kairos moments. Repeated instances of it which are appropriate to each culture and place will spring up. Even now young and old men are working to prepare their families for survival in the long term. The old know they won’t be here to see their work bear fruit, but they plant those orchards anyway.
It is not only the consciousness of one’s own death which separates us from the rest of the animals. It is also our hope for a better future. Thus, animals can only attempt to gnaw off their foot in an attempt to escape the trap that holds them while people can use tools, they can call on others for help.
We are not to blame for the people who govern us or for the traps the oligarchs have set for us. But we can plan and we can teach our children.
There is almost nothing in your comment that I would disagree with. And we are surely in a horrible spot.
“We are not to blame for the people who govern us or for the traps the oligarchs have set for us.”
I think it’s only at this point where we part company. For most of us in the West the people that govern us got there by our consent. And even after their traps were exposed we still re-elected them. That’s our fault.
Prior to 2008, I can almost excuse the naivete of electing Obama as the President of the USA.
But electing him again in 2012, after 4 years of seeing exactly what we were going to get from him? I’m
not sure how one can argue that we in the US don’t get what we deserve.
Even if we drop down to the local level how do we argue that Chicago doesn’t get the government it deserves? Or Detroit? Or New Jersey or California?
North Koreans might not be getting the government they deserve, but the rest of us in the West surely are.
But even for North Korea, China or Iran, when you’re reached the point where you can’t vote your way out of the mess you’re in there is always the rising up option. But if we don’t have the will for that then I think we have to accept what we get. I still think of the picture of that Tiananmen Square guy standing in front of the tank. He wasn’t going to accept it.