Pay No Attention to That Creature Behind the Curtain

A reader in the UK sent us a donation yesterday, and included the following note:

I’d really like to see articles on what we can do to escape the cultural Marxists and the Muslims, for example anyone advocating secession or other more radical solutions.

Nothing is being done in the UK really, It’s just slow motion cultural suicide. And it’s not so slow these days.

He’s quite right: that’s an important and worthwhile topic. I’ve written about it in the past, and should be writing more about it nowadays, because it’s far more crucial than most of the other topics I cover . However, I tend to shy away from it, because the discussion in the comments on such a post always devolves to the same unhelpful recommendations.

People who contemplate the iron fist of Cultural Marxism — and the Muslim invaders it forces down the throats of Western culture — generally arrive at the same basic prescription: “We need to do X.”

Now, X could stand for any number of useful courses of action, but what all those have in common is that they have not been implemented in the past, are not being implemented now, and show no signs of being implemented within the foreseeable future. Those who advocate for them provide no step-by-step plan for how we might proceed from where we are now to reach the desired solution. There is no suggested course of practical political action. There is only “We need to do X.” Over and over and over again.

While we’re at it, we might as well wish for a magic pony.

According to the concerned citizens who advocate for drastic solutions, the things “we” need to do may include one or more of the following:

1.   Deport all Muslims from our countries; and/or
2.   Arrest all imams who advocate killing unbelievers; and/or
3.   Close all the mosques; and/or
4.   Immediately stop all mass immigration; and/or
5.   [Intemperate recommendation redacted] all the Marxist traitors who govern us…

…And many, many more.

Yes, I agree that some or all of the above would be salubrious actions to take. I agree that Western nations would be better off if they started to implement such actions. However…

I’ve been doing this job for almost fourteen years (the last twelve of them full-time), and we are no closer now to taking even the tiniest step towards those solutions than we were when I started out. In a lot of ways things have gotten worse in those fourteen years, especially in Western Europe and Canada. And it’s not a whole lot better here in the USA, Donald Trump notwithstanding.

Western Man is teetering on tiptoe at the brink of the cultural precipice, and there is no sign that the drastic actions necessary to save him will be taken in time.

Since we started by talking about the UK, let’s take Britain as an example. Neither major party is going to take any significant steps to end the multicultural nightmare. It’s just not going to happen.

The only thing that might have a chance of pulling the country back from the precipice would be an election that would give UKIP an absolute majority in the House of Commons. And how likely is that?

The situation is similar in the rest of Western Europe, with the exception of Italy. Unless the Sweden Democrats and the PVV and the Front National and the AfD gain absolute majorities in their respective parliaments, there will be no change, because the other parties will gang up on the dissidents to form a cordon sanitaire made up of some improbable coalition of strange bedfellows, just to make sure the “right-wing extremists” never gain power.

So what “we” need to do is figure out how to get sensible, intelligent, morally straight people into political office. People who understand what needs to be done, and who have the brains, grit, and stamina to achieve it. People like, say, Viktor Orbán — whose ilk is as rare as hen’s teeth this side of the Iron Curtain.

That’s all “we” need to do. But I have no clue about how “we” might achieve it.

Anybody else got any ideas?

53 thoughts on “Pay No Attention to That Creature Behind the Curtain

  1. Our societies all need higher birthrates, that would solve so many problems but encouraging more children runs counter to much of society these days. Children bind families together through childhood friendships as well as marriage, they limit boorish behaviour in adults who have them, they are literally the future population of any society, they motivate people to create safer environments for the children to grow up in.

    I think a lot of the ills we currently have are the result of too many single childless adults.

    • Our societies all need higher birthrates…

      First ask why birthrates fell to begin with.

      Second, figure out how to incentivize MARRIED couples to have children. People act from self-interest, so make the decision in their own best interest. So far, countries like China and Russia, who desperately want to move beyond their stagnant birthrates haven’t been able to figure it out. This would seem to indicate that central command economies don’t have enough local information to figure out the solution.

      Third, make it significantly harder for either member of a couple with children to simply abandon the kids and go their own way. It ought to be a crime.

      Fourth, look at countries that do have higher birthrates and see what they’ve done.

      • Muslim and african countries both have extremely high birth rates. What do they have in common? Both types of societies tend to be patriarchial and tribal in nature, where women are definitely second class citizens. Women do not own their own sexuality, and a number of structures both cultural and religious/legal are in place which enforce this. I think economic security also plays a role, as in such societies where options for female employment are very limited or restricted, they must conform and follow the rules of men, whether a father or brother, uncle, cousin, etc., or husband. All of the above add up to a society where there is a much more traditional definition of the roles of men and women, and therefore, a much higher birthrate than western societies. Those women have much higher birthrates because it is easy for them to do so and options to do otherwise are limited by culture and lack of economic freedom.

        So how do we change western birthrates to become higher? The short answer is we don’t. Not without somehow restricting the sexual freedoms of women and restricting their options regarding employment and financial freedom from men. There will always be a subset of women who want large families, and have partners who are able and willing to support a large family. But, in my opinion, when push comes to shove most women value their independence over having many children or giving up hypergamy in their teens and twenties.

        What can be done to encourage western birthrates to increase? Not much in my opinion. At best, disincentives can be addressed, such as reforming divorce and child support/alimony laws. Or, encourage reproduction through financial incentives, tax incentives for those who choose to raise a family instead of have a career. But ultimately, their has to be a spiritual or existential need that needs to be present so one feels the need to pass one’s heritage and genetics on to future generations. And there is no easy fix for that.

        • The only way to get the divorce rates down is to stop alimony payments. I would only accept alimony limited in time in the case of adultery (we may see it as a penalty to the spouse that failed one of the contract clauses).

          Stop support for single mothers would help. Support should continue to exist to widower moms/dads.

          To restrict female sexuality, the good old fashioned shaming of promiscuous women may help keep them in line.

          I disagree with financial incentives because they will only accelerate population replacement. I remember having a conversation with a co-worker in which he said an extra 100€ a month are not enough to raise another kid. The muslims living in the west don’t seem to agree. Unless laws are changed to allow those financial incentives to be given only to a subset of the population they would do more harm than good.

          • To restrict female sexuality, the good old-fashioned shaming of promiscuous women may help keep them in line.

            No, it won’t. Shaming anyone will not “help [to] keep them in line”. You don’t seem to have studied human nature very deeply if you believe this. I hope and pray you’re not in a position to influence small children because your notion is toxic; it is sure to cause problems in adulthood for any child.


            You would be in those “Adverse Childhood Experiences” this long-term study enumerates.

            What your ‘solution’ would do is produce more prostitutes. Prostitution is shame gone underground, which is one reason Christ rebuked the would-be stoners. But go ahead, throw your rock. Aim it well.

            Meanwhile, restrictive Muslim cultures still have a lot of women who step out of line.

          • Stopping support for single mothers would penalise the children, who are not responsible for their existence.

          • Mark H,

            I have a coworker who is 18. He said his 17 year old girlfriend who’s still in high school wants to get pregnant now in order to have a rent free council house and benefits.

            Single mothers exist (for the most part) because of welfare and not the other way around.

            If you want to save the children there is another solution. A single mother that is not able to provide for her child will have the state take care of the child (possibly setting the kid for adoption) and sterilize the woman. Problem solved.

      • Why do birthrates fall?

        Consider this possibility. Genes have a constant mutation rate. Most mutations are harmful and the first organs affected by mutations are those relating to intelligence and reproduction. The advance of medical technology along with the welfare state allows individuals with glaring dysfunctions to live and reproduce, thus driving out the functional, healthy genes.

        How to increase the birthrate?

        Consider making the availability of welfare and other government assistance dependent on voluntary, permanent sterilization. The individuals are able to live comfortably, but are not able to pass on dysfunctional genes.

        Permit wealthy individuals who wish to encourage some reproductive line to make their own bargains: lifetime support for individuals of their choice, in exchange for voluntary, permanent sterilization.

        Sorry for being so crass, but that’s the only way to achieve that goal. The Eastern European societies with healthy populations went through Communist occupation, which meant that life was hard and unforgiving, and unfit individuals were unlikely to receive enough support to survive.

        • I think the cost of land and the cost of housing is important. This arises from the need of bankers to have high credit on which they can charge interest. Wages of parents are diluted by this money that is lent into existence raising the cost of having a family. The tax on such income pays for the housing of the migrant. Large families of the taxpayers are discouraged. Further I do not think that having small families is a bad thing. It is large famines that brings pressure on the society and the planet. Cutting back on welfare and the migration of families would be an excellent start.

    • Children are now a big financial liability. The average couple has to work very hard to both support and educate their own children–or child–and to support the much greater number of children of third world mass immigration (who will grow up to keep this system in place and to enhance it).

      Feminism nothwithstanding, I do think that more women would have more children if the financial burden was not so high.

      • The financial burden is not as high as people think (I have 4 kids) and is too often used to mask people’s increasing selfishness. What many really mean when they talk about the financial “burden” is that they don’t want to give up their 2 foreign hols a year, latest gadgets and eating out 3x a week.

        • Agreed! We don’t do holidays or eating out. Very occasional visits to family. Children are the best thing ever. I feel sorry for childless couples. They’ve no idea what they’re missing…except for those who’d *like* to have kids but can’t, for whatever reason.

  2. You know what to do. Keep publishing GoV. You know how change occurs: Paradigms flip all of a sudden. GoV et al facilitates the flip. Trust in the sensibility of our species. We don’t have rows of dying crucified people on the road to Rome anymore.

    • No, we don’t. But not so early in the last century we DID have rows of crucified Christians in Turkey, thanks to our now-NATO ‘ally.’ But how often will our mass media show us THAT picture (and pictures DO exist)?

      Not to dismiss your point … I agree with you, for the most part.

  3. Very simple. A serious enough financial crisis that caused the complete collapse of the Euroweenie Welfare State. The weather, food, and traffic are all bad enough in Western Europe that the invading hordes, absent the usual creature comforts that come with being the darling pets of the Comintern, would quickly realise that living happily in Europe takes a certain kind of person, and a certain kind of personality, and they would move on of their own free will, back to the sunnier climes of their native ethnic lands, where the living is orders of magnitude easier than making it from scratch in Western Europe (or Australia, Canada, New Zealand) …

    • I disagree. They are much freer to commit murder and mayhem in Europe than they were at home. They are like sailors on permanent leave from any responsibility; they plan to eat their hosts when they run out of food. Study what the waves of barbarians did to Rome…and the EU looks mighty like Rome, no?

      • I have to post these in, “the moderate migrant” genre (lol at that self-deprecation but you know how intolerance is so I will leave anyone guessing as to what I am trying to say ). Bai is from Sierra Leone, son of diplomats from the country…

        [redacted for failure to follow our guidelines for courteous dialogue]

        It’s just my nature to challenge and look for different perspectives, so not to take this comment personally…unless you have/want to, but that is not as meant etc.

        • Well, it’s just your nature to be slyly rude to your audience, eh? You would do well to find another forum where you are free to indulge your “nature”. Otherwise, we’ll start charging you for every single superfluous word you put down here.

          • This is where I sign out here unfortunately, for the simple reason that if you do not allow comment through that defends from your accusation then conversation and debate is not possible. You could have swallowed the original comment whole and no more would be said, as you know from the occasional other that may have grated and was not posted. However if you post and criticise I expect at the very very least to be allowed to explain or defend myself from any misinterpretation.

            It is your site, I respect that, and so :

            Adieu and fair wind to all.

      • Stopping support for single mothers would penalise the children, who are not responsible for their existence.

        • Mark H,

          I do understand the sentiment with which you make your statement. And I agree that children are the biggest victims of the foolishness of their parents and the ones who pay the biggest price.

          However, the issue I have with the current system and why support to single mothers needs to go away is that while women are allowed the choice of whether to become a parent or not, that same fundamental right is not extended to men to choose to become a parent or not. In my opinion, the greater harm is caused by forcing someone who is unwilling to become a parent to have to do so under compulsion and duress. At present, there is little incentive for a woman to not bring a child into the world outside of marriage, and that is a great injustice to the child and causes great harm to the institutions of family and marriage.

          And to preempt those who would argue that men (or women) do not have to have sex if they don’t want to become parents, that is a false argument. It is not always the man that is forced into becoming a parent unwillingly, and there are many women who are forced within their relationships to have more children than they wish to by their partner. At present, a woman not desiring to become a parent after becoming pregnant can choose to end the pregnancy (without the consent or input of her partner) or have the child and opt to give the child up for adoption without legal consequence. A man does not have the same choice. The biggest test of whether a policy is fair is to turn it around and see if it still works for the other party. What if a woman on finding that she was pregnant had to follow the wishes of her partner under duress and either see the child aborted regardless of her feelings and wishes according to her partner’s will, or be forced to become a mother and then spend the next 18 years being compelled under duress to send financial support to her partner to raise a child which she might rarely see or have any input in raising? Doesn’t sound so fair then does it?

          This is why I am so opposed to compelling support for single mothers without at least giving the father the legal and irrevocable decision on whether they too will be a parent with all the financial and other responsibilities which that implies.

  4. Baron – you have every right to be getting tired of trying. But consider this. I found your site over ten years ago, along with Vlad and B.C.F. You guys red pilled me, and I am eternally grateful. I visit you every day with my morning Java. I propagate your well prepared material all over the Internet. I am sure I am not alone. I have had some success in awakening others, and have been dismissed by some. But I think the tide is turning. You are an important source for people like me to draw on. Please don’t give up. Sincerely: The Blind Druid.

    • Thank you. I won’t quit, not until senility sets in, anyway. Which I hope to postpone for a while longer…

      • Just a thank you to Baron & Dymphna for your dedication, persistence, of bringing truth, to the debate about islam and immigration.

        All your other posts add to a fullness of context, and bring an understanding of the philosophies in Western Civilization.
        Often a joy as deeper understanding means a better appreciation of the values, of what we have got.
        The many reasons why we must hold on, being a remnant, as mentioned above, can with “truth information” aid in “paradigm flips” that do happen.

        Do not fear old age, it is a time of thinking, appreciation, using your time-wide experience, and then even if fewer posts, the quality is higher !
        Wishing good health, and support when you need it.

  5. Minor independencies help?? What a joke!

    How does the creation of little dwarf-states strengthen the nationstate? The creation of little dwarf-states like: England, Scotland, Catalonia, Bask-country, Corsica, Sardinia etc, will only be that the EU is strengthened! Because they are too small to support themselves!

    No! We should strive for strong nation-states. Nationalism over regionalism! France and Germany both consist of multiple peoples! Still they are one state.

    Practical steps to be taken to dissolve the EU? Vote for right-wing parties, aka “populists” by the fake-news media. Other then that, normal citizens cannot really do anything, unless they wanna lose their jobs or end up in jail.

    The EU is in the process of dissolving itself. All the people in Brussels belong to the globalist crowd, so they cannot be argued with. Therefore reform of the EU is not possible. On the other hand, there are opposing forces which are equally uncompromising, like the Visegrad-states, who are now being joined by Austria and Italy. France is in the globalist hand for another 4 years, but after that, who knows. Spain continues globalist rule under a new banner. The Brits have already left, and what will happen during the next elections in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands is totally open. The longer the bureaucrats in Brussels stick to their position, the more strife and anger will occur and the bigger the centrifugal forces will become.

    Problem is that no country can afford to leave the EU, or they will face the same revenge actions by the EU as the UK. The perverse thing is that the EU negotiates on behalf of 28 states, whereas only France and Germany do any of the real decision-making. Therefore reform of the EU is necessary! This has to be done at the negotiating-table and requires a cooperation of Viktor Orban as leader of the Visegrad-states and willing politicians of the founder-states of the EU, among which, at the moment, Italy is the most important. The goal should be to reduce the EU to a free-trade agreement, much like NAFTA, with a common inner market for goods and capital, but with a free traffic of labourers only an as-needed basis. The EU-parliament and the EU-commission should be dissolved. The veto-right of every nation should be returned, and further integrationsteps (if there will be any at all) should only be decided upon at big conferences where the leaders of the different European nations meet. In this way, the EU-project will cease to act as a runaway train, which none of the member states controls anymore!

  6. “… But I have no clue about how “we” might achieve it. Anybody else got any ideas?”

    This is definitely above my pay grade, but I might suggest skillful, fact-based polemics and propaganda: the polemics to make people realize the absurdity of their illusory beliefs and the propaganda to make them aware of a non-dissonant, harmonious alternative.

    • Yes, that’s where we have to begin. The problem is that there is so little time.

      The steady drip-drip-drip of counterpropaganda can make a difference, even as samizdat (which is what we’re doing here). But will effective results come soon enough? I don’t know the answer.

  7. I happen to trust the Bible:

    For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

  8. I guess I’m in a cynical mood, but I say, let Europe fall. Let it become an Islamic Caliphate. More than half of the population sees no problem with that anyway, so let them have it. Then, the miserable, barren, wasteland of Islamic Europe will be the lesson the rest of the world needs to realize that Islam needs to be exterminated.

    • We already have the examples of the rotten to the core Islamic states in the former advanced Byzantine states of the Near East. If people are stupid enough not to see where Europe is headed and still love Islam, then how can allowing Europe to fall to the Moslem infestation pestilence be a lesson for future generations? Islam is Borg a death cult to anything it infests. It must be resisted unto death. We cannot leave this mess to our descendants! More than this we must round up and arrest for a new Nuremburg trial to bring the culprits to justice. Their crimes are the most heinous in human history. If we win this and personally I believe we can despite appearances, then Communism and Islam itself must be exposed as the inhuman pathogens they are and eliminated from the earth as much as such ideas can be, by constant reminder and example, in the coming centuries, just as Kings were eliminated from the Roman State in 509BC…..

      “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.” Winston S, Churchill, River Wars

      • Thanks for that whole quote. How prescient.

        As for the examples around us of the near East, most Americans don’t even remember the Balkans, let alone that Turkey has always been a conquering force, or that the Hagia Sophia was once Justinian’s Cathedral.

        But I really like the idea of rounding up the traitors in our midst (and governing us). They are worse than the Jihadists, in my opinion. They, at least, know what civilization IS.

  9. Use existing laws to prosecute Imams for incitement to violence when they quote the Koran.
    The Danes are doing it. This should be worldwide.

  10. Individually we cannot do much. You can however boycot any Halal foods, do not give your business to any Islamic company or person, that means no “Indian” takeaways or meals, no patronising the local corner shop, no McVities biscuits, do some homework on what companies are islamic owned, do not feed into their sub-economy.
    Use language as it should be used, and do not fear words. Orwell had this bang on the nail, if you cannot articulate an idea, it may as well not exist. Calmly and logicially articular your viewpoint. And when and if we get the chance, vote for a populist, (sorry, democratic) candidate.
    If Muslims were treated exactly the same as us indiginous folks, given no special treatment in the legal system, housing, schooling and health, some at least would leave!

  11. DJ is correct: the hostile colonists only thrive because they are not held to the norms which created our civilized society.
    Strict application of the law as regard to incitement to violence which would lead to theimprisonment of imams.
    The confiscation of property related to illegal activity ie mosques where hatred is preached.
    Reform of welfare to return it to its original purpose as a stopgap for the short term unemployed, a support for the disabled and elderly.
    No services from the state mediated by translator, insistence on fluency.
    No inhumane slaughter of animals or distribution of their meat.
    No face covering in public places.
    Prosecution of bigamous Muslim marriages.
    Banning of cousin-cousin marriage without genetic counseling
    Islamic charities must lose their charitable status and banks transferring money abroad on their behalf to report all transactions.
    Removal of naturalization status for all criminals followed up by deportation.
    Internment of refugees while status is investigated.
    Benefits for refugees to be pegged at half that of a citizen pensioner.
    The teaching of Europe’s 1400year old war with Islam, unexpurgated.

    • Your laundry list of recommendations is a good one, but there is still no plan to get from where we are now to being able to make it happen. How can it be done?

      For example: “Strict application of the law” — how can that be implemented?

      The law is not enforced equally because the enforcers — the police — are under instructions not to do so. This means a change of personnel among those who give orders to the police, which would be the district attorneys (USA) or crown prosecutors (UK) and the mayors.

      So tell me: how, precisely, will Sadiq Khan be unseated? Do you have a plan for taking him down? Because as long as he remains in office, the laws will NOT be enforced equally in London.

      In the USA the rot is not as far advanced, but the same problem already exists in cities like Dearborn. And in the thoroughly progressive cities, the mayors and city councils are already eagerly submitting to Islam.

      What is your plan for ousting progressives from office in major US cities? Those liberal Democrat machines have governed as one-party satrapies for a half-century or more. How would you change that? Be specific.

      • I so hate it when you have such a good counter argument. I truly wonder whether we will ever get to the point where “Ljh’s” points are actually acted upon. Chances are that we will be pushing up daisies if and when that time comes.

      • In the U.S., there is at least the #Walk away movement, where the Democrats have become so extreme far-left and hysterical that they are repelling their own supporters. The “progressives” (progressing towards what? Social destruction?) are losing ground with voters with their sanctuary cities, etc. CNN apparently gets fewer viewers than the Food Network. Voters of all backgrounds support stronger borders, and greatly reduced immigration into the U.S..
        In the U.S., you know who the RINOs are, and can get them out at the midterms, and vote in Trump supporters (assuming they’re not lying, like so many have done to get into power).
        The MSM is no longer believed either in the U.S. or here in the UK.
        We have almost the entire British establishment, and media lined up against the interests of the majority of its own people. Voting in a significant number of UKIP MPs will scare the bejesus out of everyone else. A recent unofficial online Twitter poll had UKIP on 30% of voters, the Conservatives on just 12%. Unfortunately, it also had Labour, despite being embroiled in anti-semitism scandals, on 41%.

        • The #WalkAway movement is gathering strength here. We are fortunate so many are willing to tell their stories. However, when you say Voters of all backgrounds support stronger borders, and greatly reduced immigration into the U.S., you don’t see the many leftists who are willing to injure and kill to permit those floods of immigrants to get into the country.

          As a result California, the richest state in the Union, is fast on its way to becoming a 3rd world cesspit as the leftists in power deliberately degrade the populace.

          California is a beautiful place, but just goes to show even Eden can be destroyed by a concentration of drug gangs, the desperately poor, and a willfully arrogant elite. The wrong-headed policies about forests have caused huge fire devastation, but those events just become a way to talk about “climate” “change”. The same is true of its management of water, its socialist taxation policies, etc.

    • A good overall principle would be to eliminate the welfare state in general and public assistance in particular, altogether. The welfare state is what attracts immigrant hoards; the political exigencies of a democracy make it extremely difficult (impossible) to deny benefits to members of an identity (racial, religious) group.

      As long as you concede government benefits, a strong identity group will grab them. The Jewish Chasidim are doing just that in New York. They are using their group cohesiveness, high birthrate, and special talents to co-opt public funding and divert it into their own schools. Muslims are always trying to use the charter school process to create Muslim schools, and to use public pressure on the school board to use materials favorable to Muslims.

    • This has to be one of the most sensible comments I’ve ever read on this whole wretched issue.

  12. I have read the question of the UK citizen at the top of the article, and despite I think there is no easy solution (and maybe there is just no solution at all), more or less I think we all are on similar pathway. Western world was not perfect or the best ever of all possible civilizations, so it is unavoidable to vanish one day, like we all are going to die soon or later. The western world is slowly going back to dark ages, (and there is no way to turn it back), for many reasons (Λoγos), that maybe historians, in a new future enlightenment age, will found out. Of course some countries will endure and survive, but many others will fall down the abyss, like happened in Babylonia. It is not happy to look at the future with realistic eyes, but one cannot lie to himself.

    The muslim idolaters have existed for more than a thousand years, they have always been there on same earth, and they did not change a lot. But we have. It was unthinkable 1 or 2 century ago, to live together the sheep and the wolf, just because we need to avoid economic crisis and because international organizations and banks (mostly controlled by jews), want for us more migrants in (what was) our land.

    Look at the absurdity of this new story, a migrant boat who has been rescued and sent back to lybia in the mediterrean, is making all international organizations of UN and EU to protest against italy. The tile of the article is with no sense: “Migrants’ return to Libya by Italian boat could breach international law – UN”. Which international rule ? The New World Order control the whole world today ?
    Nobody in EU want the migrant boats, but if you try to stop them, you have many of these free masonry humanitarian organization against you. And they are quite strong because they control European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund.

    At this point I would report from the 1st letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, chapter 5, at 9, 10:
    I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters.

    Saint Paul is talking not live together and associate or make any business with muslims (people who marry more than a wife, or who marry a 9 years old child, or who are idolaters). So when the modernist church of post vatican council II, is saying otherwise, it is contradicting Saint Paul. I think Saint Paul has all the answers. Not listening to Saint Paul advice at this point is pure evil and suicidal madness.

      • The UNHCR is one of the many tools of the New World Order. EU is part of the same international scheme (or scam), and I do not see any contradiction between the founding principles of UN and EU: both are atheist construction made up by financial free masonry based on philanthropic and humanitarian ideology, to subvert the nation states of the world. All the refugee game is meaningless: why the hell should we accept a man which is persecuted in another country ? Who can judge if a country has no right to persecute criminals ? So, the New World Order, think to be above all, and to be righter than any other country of the world, like if they are god or something. They pretend to be more just than any other on this planet. And you can see their hypocrisy, with muslims above all today.

    • The Western world may not be the best of all possible civilisations, but it IS the best so far.

      • Maybe a century ago. I think today, the modern western world, simply forgot who we are and where we come from. So without memory, for me, it is already a dead zombie random walking. Today western world is some place of unlimited “happiness” where inverteds and transsexuals enjoy marriage and build families. Any one can come in, all are welcome. Welfare is a right for everyone too. Anybody need to be saved, this life is the only thing that matter. Even murders, killers, need a second chance, and it is ok to ban capital punishment. Satanic cult of death and idolatry freedom is guaranteed for everyone. It is all written in the human rights chart. I think the path for ending like Babylonia is already traced.

  13. In the town of Macerata, domicile of one of the oldest (1290 AD) universities in Italy, a 28-year-old Italian shot at black immigrants from a car early February 2018.
    According to news coverage in Italian newspapers, the shooter was a candidate for Lega Nord in the local 2017 elections.
    Italian media reported at the time that the shooting was possibly related to the murder of an 18-year-old Italian woman a few days before. The murder investigation led to the arrest of a Nigerian migrant.
    Leader Matteo Salvini of the Lega Nord blamed the death of that young woman on the center-left government. He stated on Facebook that by allowing migrants flowing freely into the country the Left had “blood on its hands”. Salvini did distance himself from the shooting of migrants by the 28-year-old Italian. He however added that “unrestrained immigration leads to many social tensions”.

    Lega Nord became the big winner of the national elections one month after the shooting.

  14. This is indeed THE question and I have given it much thought in recent years. My conclusion may sound too radical, but it could also be the key to effecting a real change.

    What I have come to realize is that leftism is hard-coded into the democratic political system itself. It is not simply a matter of leftist vs. right-wing parties; the very political structure of Western democracy is a creation of the left, and must function along leftist lines. There is no possibility of a true nationalist or identitarian entering politics and *remaining* true to right-wing values, because the system exists to promote statism and rule by decree. The few who have the moral character to resist this fact will find it extraordinarily difficult to work with other politicians and promote right-wing agenda effectively.

    If I am correct, the axiom we have to accept is this: Any person elected to political office will necessarily either (1) degenerate into a leftist, (2) be reduced to an ineffectual sideshow, and/or (3) be ejected from politics altogether.

    This means that any true policy change must be achieved from outside the political establishment — by exerting pressure and influence on politicians without actually joining their ranks in elected office. A right-wing movement cannot, by definition, be part of the establishment; but it can steer its actions because it usually represents the silent majority of any nation-state population.

    I think the Gandhi route could be an effective method to achieve this kind of “outsidercracy”: A social surge led by a person who has no political machine behind him, but appeals to the masses by the power of their virtuous character. It would be a kind of prophet or “judge” (in the Biblical sense) who can plausibly pass moral judgment on the establishment and shame politicians into acting on behalf of the people. In other words, a positive type of community organizer.

    Of course, it would be good to have more than one such person… But it can’t be allowed to develop into a full-fledged political movement, and that’s the tricky part. The moment when media consultants and big donors hop on the prophet’s wagon is the first moment in the inevitable disintegration into yet another head of the leftist Hydra.

    Where do we find such people? That’s the next question.

    • I agree with your assertions. Those who rule us own the systems by which they do so. Since it is impossible to beat them at their own game then the logical choice is to refuse to play their game and instead play one of one’s own making.

      Non-violent Ghandi-style social disobedience is one plausible option. Violent, Robespierre-type revolution is another equally plausible option. The timing for both options is not yet ripe in my opinion. And that is the problem we find ourselves in. The demographic disaster which will inexorably take our countries away from us is very far advanced and barring some unforseen black swan, a mathematical certainty. The problem though is sufficiently distant that solutions which needed to happen yesterday are not being decided upon and implemented because for most people there are more pressing, immediate concerns than demographic replacement which might possibly affect them at some point in their lifetime, and which carry a heavy social penalty for being publically opposed to anyway. To quote Claire Wolfe — ‘America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.’

      Things unfortunately need to become far worse and victory far less certain before the issues become unavoidable and the need to take drastic action apparent to a large enough percentage of the populace to allow courses of action which today are impossibilities, to become necessary and urgent.

      • Agreed. It is not possible to sway enough people fast enough by appealing to reason, because it is still quite easy to pretend things are not that bad, and to cling to soothing statistics such as that Muslims are only 4% of the population in a certain country or that that the migrant flow has decreased by 80%. We can probably count on this illusion to outlive the use-by date of the doomed countries where it is played out.

        That’s why I think the only available option is to appeal to people emotionally, which is what the left has been doing all along with huge success.

        A Gandhi-like personality that appropriates the moral high ground (a leftist concept) may be able to do what rational polemics can’t. It will also help if leftist language tactics are used to present right-wing ideas, as Ilya Toli said above.

Comments are closed.