Alain Wagner to the OSCE: We Need Referenda to Restore Popular Sovereignty

2018 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Monday, 17 September 2018

Working Session 10
Fundamental Freedoms I, Including Freedom of Expression

Intervention read by Alain Wagner, representing International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA)

Note: The intervention is in French, with a simultaneous voice-over translation.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

What Mohammed? What Koran? What Mecca?

The following video is an excellent introduction by Dr. Jay Smith to the deconstruction by Western scholars of the Koran, Mohammed, and Islam itself. Using hermeneutics, textual analysis, archaeology, and other modern disciplines, he demonstrates that the three principal elements of Islam could not possibly be factually true in the way they are traditionally expounded:

1.   Mohammed                                                            
2.   The Koran
3.   Mecca
 

The archaeology and relevant historical documents simply do not support the traditions of Islam. Something happened in Arabia between the 7th and 10th centuries, but it certainly wasn’t what is described in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira.

A large part of Dr. Smith’s analysis focuses on the qiblas in the oldest mosques, which did not point to Mecca, but to Petra, in what is now Jordan. He explains the likely significance of the switch from Petra to Mecca, which was prompted by the conflict between the Abbasid and Umayyad dynasties in the late first millennium. He also explains the political necessities that likely motivated Abd al-Malik to invent and backdate Mohammed, the Koran, and Islam itself:

Hat tip: acuara.

The Red Evolution IV: The Subversive Left, the Destabilising Left, the Antecedents of Generation Snowflake and the Ultimate Surrender of Rationality (Part One)

The essay below is the latest in an occasional series by our expatriate English correspondent Peter on the history of the Socialist Left in Britain.

The Red Evolution IV: The Subversive Left, the Destabilising Left, the Antecedents of Generation Snowflake and the Ultimate Surrender of Rationality

by Peter

ONE

Having lived through it, I believe the period from 1960 to 1975, commonly known as the ’60s, was a carefully devised trap into which we all propelled ourselves, willingly and of our own volition, a knot with a multitude of apparently loose strands which, when drawn tightly together, ensnared us all. The summer of peace and love did not happen, at least, not the way they said it did. With the wisdom of hindsight, I believe that what did happen in the 1960s was mass-indoctrination; the first of a succession of generations to move into Communism, not by force, but by stealth, subversion, sex, drugs and rock and roll by way of a process which began many years before.

World War II finally ended on 2nd September 1945 with the signing of the Peace Treaty with Japan on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo harbour, Germany having surrendered to the Allies four months earlier, after Hitler had thoughtfully put himself out of everyone’s misery. As a result, the Soviet Union had acquired East Germany and much of Eastern Europe, upon which by means of the eradication of political institutions, terror campaigns, purges of dissidents, mass murder and other tried and tested methods of enforcing totalitarian control, the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin ruthlessly imposed communist rule in defiance of assurances extracted from him by his allies at Yalta in February 1945 that free elections would be held. He guessed rightly that Western leaders had had enough of war and would not take up arms again — at least, not then, and not over Eastern Europe.

Stalin and his cronies had planned the Communist takeover of Eastern Europe well before 1939, so that when the Red Army had ‘liberated’ those countries, police forces, both conventional and covert Communist party structures were already in place and awaiting activation. In the late 1940s, with the Soviet Empire now a work in progress, Stalin was intent on extending Soviet influence, believing it was only a matter of time before Western Europe fell into its clutches, but there were several restraining influences.

While Western Europe was nearly destitute and primarily engaged on rebuilding what remained of its society and its cities, thanks in a large part to the Marshall Plan, it was still prepared to defend itself, and if it were to fall short in this enterprise, then America stood ready, willing and able to pick up any deficit. Additionally, the Soviet Union had paid a terrible price for its own role in what it called The Great Patriotic War, far greater than any other participating country. Stalingrad was not the only Soviet City to have been reduced to rubble during hostilities. In Western Russia alone, the degree of desolation caused by a scorched earth policy exercised by both sides had all but obliterated 1700 towns and approximately 70,000 villages, along with 32,000 factories and 65,000 kilometres of railway track. In addition, the loss of life suffered by the population of the USSR as published by the current Russian Government totals 26.6 million people, two thirds of which were civilians, but this has been called a conservative estimate by Russian scholar Boris Sokolov, who believes there were around 43.3 million Soviet lives lost, 27 million of which were civilians.

Therefore Stalin’s options for Soviet expansion through direct assault appeared limited, but there was one option, a proxy war in the east. This would require a minimal call on Soviet manpower while ascertaining firstly whether the West still had the stomach for a fight, and secondly whether his newly-acquired Chinese allies would rally to the cause. The Korean Peninsula had been occupied by the Japanese since 1910, and following their surrender in 1945 had been divided along an area just north of the 38th Parallel between the Soviet-backed north ruled by the Communist Kim Il-Sung and the US backed south led by President Syngman Rhee. It would be fair to say that Soviet support for the North Korean leadership was lukewarm, while the Americans regarded Rhee as the best of a particularly nasty bunch, whose only positive characteristics were his fluency in English and his aversion to communism.

Throughout 1949 and 1950 the North Korean military had been receiving large quantities of Soviet tanks, artillery and aircraft as well as intensive combat training, while its numbers had been enhanced considerably by the return of battle-hardened veterans who had fought on the Communist side in the Chinese civil war. By contrast, the South Korean army had little more than small arms with which to defend itself. A North-versus-South conflict appeared to be a very unequal contest, and this encouraged Stalin to give the word for his North Korean client to invade the South, which it did on 25th June 1950.

Although the invasion caught the Americans by surprise, the UN reacted with amazing speed, compared to the lethargic Arab-dominated talking shop it has now become. On 27th June it authorized a US-led multinational force from what would eventually become twenty-one countries to repel the North Korean invasion. After the first months of the conflict, coalition troops were very much on the back foot until a seaborne UN counter-offensive landed at Inchon cut off North Korean troops and effectively altered the course of the war. The retreating North Korean forces were pursued northwards to an area close to the border with China, whereupon in response to an earlier commitment made to Stalin, Mao Zedong ordered the Communist Chinese army into the war, dispatching a massive force across the border into Korea, compelling the UN armies to retreat in the face of its ferocious advance.

Continue reading

The German-Language Press Reacts to Donald Trump’s Speech at the UN

JLH has compiled and translated a set of headlines from the German-language press reacting to yesterday’s speech at the United Nations by President Donald Trump.

GERMANY

Stern

Donald Trump Threatens North Korea with Total Destruction

The US President spoke before the UN and his speech was a singular plea for nationalism in accord with his motto, “America first.” This focus did not, however, prevent Donald Trump from making dire threats against North Korea.

Spiegel

Trump at the UN
America, America, and then the rest of the world

In his first speech at the UN, US President Donald Trump threatens North Korea, condemns Iran and praises himself. Nonetheless, his appearance is the most conclusive one thus far, and that includes various broken taboos.

Welt

Trump before the UN
No power that wants to lead morally can talk like that

With his first speech to the UN, Donald Trump dashed all hopes that he might be tamable. His threats against North Korea are beyond measure and dangerous. And so the world stumbles on from crisis to crisis.

Welt [again]

US president at the UN
Another Trump is heard from

In his first speech at the UN, the US president attacked “rogue states” from North Korea to Iran to Venezuela. But he also struck other notes. His speechwriter is responsible for that.

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Trump’s UN Speech
Fiery words and fatal misconceptions

Donald Trump emphasizes the significance of “sovereign national states” and speaks against North Korea. UN General Secretary Guterres urges unity — with a dig at the US president.

Bild

US expert[1] analyzes Trump’s UN speech
“That will not intimidate Kim”

US President Donald Trump’s debut at the UN, where he spoke of the “total destruction” of North Korea,” was not well-received.

1. Devin Hayes Ellis, director of the think tank “ICONS”

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

SWITZERLAND

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

The new Trump Doctrine could do serious damage to America’s interests

The American president’s declaration of war against North Korea caused excitement. What is more important is his foreign policy concept. It has serious weaknesses.

Blick

Continue reading

Germany — Land of Milk and Honey

What is the effect of immigration of people from collapsed states or states incapable of development? Are they importing that collapse to this society? Are they destroying here the cultural and institutional prerequisites of industrialization which they never had and could not create in their homelands?

The following brilliant and comprehensive article about Modern Multicultural Madness was the last one published before his death by the German scholar Rolf Peter Sieferle. Among other things, it provides a useful synonym for multiculturalism: “multi-tribalism”.

JLH, who translated the piece for Gates of Vienna, includes this introduction:

This article was recommended to me by Egri Nök.

Rolf Peter Sieferle took his own life on September 17, 2016, at age 67.

It is clear from the “in memoriam” comments in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as well as in assorted other articles, that he provoked strong feelings — affection and respect among friends, colleagues and students; bitter criticism from others, especially of his book Finis Germania, published post mortem, which is a miscellany of the thoughts and writings in his remaining manuscripts and journals. He has been characterized as a “right-radical” by many, for the obvious reason that he was a clear-eyed historian who provided a close look at what is happening today.

The last thing published before his death is the long article, Deutschland, Schlaraffenland, translated below. It is long, but worthwhile. With calm, relentless logic, he guides us through the rise of the industrialized, capitalist state and inexorably leads us through the causes and results of its dissolution in terms of universal history. He may be a latter-day Spengler, or a fact-based Nostradamus. Whatever he is, when I read his words, I find myself thinking that the real reason Donald Trump was elected is because many people went to the polls thinking, “Make us trust again!”

The translated article from Jürgen Fritz’s blog [pdf]:

Germany — Land of Milk and Honey

On the path to the multi-tribal society

by Rolf Peter Sieferle

At this point in time, a wave of immigration of unprecedented magnitude is inundating Europe. On the periphery, millions are setting out for the promised land. Europe is surrounded by collapsing states and hopeless areas. The population of Africa, presently circa one billion, is growing annually by 3%, that is, 30 million, of which several million yearly can set out on the way to a better, promised land. Add to this the emigration from the civil war areas of the Near East. Some of the earlier barriers to this migration have disappeared. In Libya alone, a million migrants await a space on a boat which will transport them on the dangerous passage across the Mediterranean Sea.

In this respect, Europe is in an unusual situation, due to its geographical location. Other industrial areas in the world are threatened by immigration, but none as extensively as Europe. Latin America has a population of about 400 million, that is, the number of potential emigrants is approximately the same as that of the resident population of North America (USA and Canada). The ratio in Europe is three times as great (1500 million vs. 500 million). The US border with Mexico is relatively small and can be relatively easily secured, since there is only one country from which immigrants can flow into the USA. It is quite different in Europe. It is realistically impossible to screen off the outer borders. And in the border areas of North Africa and the Near East, there are more and more unpredictable states which cannot be counted on to cooperate.

Other industrial countries such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand are so far from possible origin lands of immigration that the trip by boat people is risky and relatively easy to monitor. It is more problematic in the emerging countries of Southeast Asia (Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, etc.) which are eligible goals for immigrants. Other countries such as China and Russia are difficult to reach and are not (yet) attractive for immigration. That leaves Europe as the place where we can expect the greatest immigration pressure. Europeans must be paralyzed with fear at this development. They are facing a folk migration comparable to the one in late antiquity.

Why do so many people want to immigrate to countries like Germany? The reasons are obvious: here there is prosperity and security, a functioning constitutional state; there are no wars or civil wars, no epidemics; the health system is excellent and free; unemployment is low; the social nets are lush — it is a land of milk and honey, and you would have to be a little dim not to recognize that. The reasons for immigrating, for the wish to immigrate, are easy to understand.

It is somewhat harder to understand why conditions in Germany are so much better than in, for instance, Iraq. That was no always the case. A thousand years ago, it was not clear where living conditions were better, and three thousand years ago, the standard of living, i.e., the civilizational niveau in Europe was without doubt lower than in Mesopotamia. Something has changed drastically here in recent millennia. The question is, what? This question is the same as the one about the reasons for “Europe’s unique path” — that is, why Europe succeeded in breaking out of the model of agrarian civilizations and bringing forth a new kind of economy, state and society, which combines prosperity and security for all. In asking this, we come upon three complexes of factors which have instigated Europe’s advance into the constitutional industrial society (a.k.a. “the modern age”): they are by nature technical-industrial, cultural-intellectual and political-institutional. What element played what role is a very thorny question. Thus far, there is no agreement on what was decisive. But it is certain that a process of positive feedback has built up in Europe in the last 300 years, and the result is the “land of milk and honey” we see before us.

Undisputed though it may be that the development into an industrial society radiated outward from Europe, it is also clear that the imitation of it in other regions has proceeded with greater or lesser success. This was simplest in the neo-European colonies (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) which effortlessly adopted or even took part in shaping the European model. Examples of success may be found in Asia, in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan — presumably also sooner or later in mainland China and India. These countries did not develop their own version of industrialization, but succeeded in a relatively short time in joining the parade.

Other countries were less successful, even though they could observe Europe’s unique progress from closer at hand. This is especially true of Russia, which has tried to keep pace with Europe for 300 years, and yet continually regresses to its old plight. That is also true of the Ottoman Empire, of which only one province was truly successful — Palestine/Israel, and in fact because of the Zionist immigration from Europe. It must be emphasized here that Judaism was not a decisive factor. If someone (for instance, Werner Sombart [1]) should wish to trace industrial capitalism to the Jews, the geographical location of its inception would have to be sought in Galicia,[2] rather than in the north of England, where there were hardly any Jews in the 17th and 18th centuries.

From Tribal Consciousness to Industrial Nation

So we confront the problem that a successful industrialization is based on certain historical, especially cultural and institutional preconditions which are not easy to imitate or create. People like living in the promised land, and are moved to immigrate to industrialized countries, but something is keeping them from establishing this paradise at home. Apparently, immigrating to an already existing utopia is easier. Why? If industrialization and democratization, the creation of a constitutional order and implementation of rational ways of thinking are natural characteristics of “modernization,” then why is it so much more attractive to undergo the rigors of migration, than to transform one’s own native land according this model? The reason, in general, is that the assumptions of modernization theory are false. Ours was a highly improbable process, shaped by many contingencies which had over centuries created ways of thinking and institutions, the results of which are evident today in zones of prosperity and security. This model of success cannot simply be copied. Transferring technology is easy; transferring institutions is difficult; transferring cultural-intellectual paradigms is practically impossible or at least a very lengthy process.

Continue reading

Justice for the Chinese, But Not for the Germans

Many thanks to JLH for translating this article from Michael Mannheimer’s website:

Germany Sentences Refugee to 11 Years in Prison for Attack on and Rape of Chinese Students

that is:

(Pressure From China Causes German Judges to do What They Ordinarily Refuse to Do)

For justice to be done in Germany, the intervention of a world power is required. A Muslim invader (code name “refugee”) sexually assaulted two Chinese female students in Bochum. That was last year. The incident had wide media exposure among the 1.6 billion people of China.

It is known that Chinese diplomats personally intervened to demand a severe punishment. And that happened. This is indirect proof that our system of justice is not independent, but directed from “above.”

We may be sure that if the victim of this Muslim invader had been a German woman, he would have gotten off with a light sentence. Examples of this can be found by the hundreds.

Only the fear of international loss of face caused this stern and just sentence against the rapist.

Germany apparently feared that its image would suffer among one-quarter of the world’s population. That alone was the cause for a comparatively just sentence.

On the occasion of German state visits to China, the precarious condition of human rights there is routinely noted. In the future, German politicians can save themselves the trouble of these remarks. Now the Chinese know very well how basic rights in Germany are: not much better than in China.

For links to previous articles by or about Michael Mannheimer, see the Michael Mannheimer Archives.

Viktor Orbán: The Silk Road and New Models of Globalization

The “Silk Road” has been in the news a lot lately — the Chinese initiative to update the old trading routes from the Far East across the steppes of Central Asia to the Caucasus and Europe.

In the following excerpt from his recent remarks during the Silk Road negotiations, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán talks about a new model of globalization that is replacing the old, worn-out one.

Many thanks to CrossWare for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Macron Won: Nowhere Left to Run and Everything Will Burn

A snip from Wretchard’s analysis.

He is describing the Hell that has become the 21st Century:

Although Macron’s victory and Moon’s [South Korea] likely triumph will likely be portrayed as a return of electoral politics to the globalist mainstream — a reversal of the Brexit/Trump trend — they are actually the opposite. Both are attempts to solve challenges that have baffled the elite.

Hillary Clinton in her latest attempt to reinvent herself revealed an off-beat turn. “I’ve spent decades learning about what it would take to move our country forward, including people who clearly didn’t vote for me. To try to make sure that we dealt with a lot of these hard issues that are right around the corner, like robotics and artificial intelligence, and things that are really going to be upending the economy, for the vast majority of Americans, to say nothing of the rest of the world. So, I’m now back to being an activist citizen, and part of the resistance.” [Italics are in the original]

Macron is going down the same old, same old. Globalization, social media, scientific revolutions are still taking the world order apart. At least Hillary’s at the point where she’s changing the talking points to see what happens. The hurricane which began with Brexit and Trump, far from dying down, is amping up as the local elections in Britain suggest. The working class has been orphaned by the Left and Macron claims to be the Center. The winds are coming from another quarter. [and they carry with them the smell of smoke and burning flesh… – D]

It’s possible the ‘responsible’ plan is to rely on a Macron or Hillary to guide us into a future they alone understand, but not likely. Perhaps what is happening is partly explained by Venezuela, which exhibits an eerie stability even as it sinks into chaos. A New York Times article explains Venezuela’s calm as a case of stress aggregation rather than conflict resolution. The Venezuelan elites have not won and [are] sitting on their laurels; they are just deadlocked waiting for someone to break ranks to show which way to run.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Only Richard Fernandez could manage to envisage stable chaos. No doubt there’s a mathematical term for that?

Especially see his analysis in this essay of South Korea’s young. We have the virulent evils of 1950s Communism to thank for their predicament.

Welcoming the Caliphate to Brazil

The following article about Brazil’s new open-borders law was published last night at Vlad Tepes.

New immigration law opens Brazil’s borders to drug trafficking and the Islamic Caliphate

by José Atento

This article deals with the situation of the Islamization of Brazil in light of the new Law of Immigration, approved by the country’s Senate and sent for presidential signing. It highlights steps that have been taken to increase the nonexistent Islamic presence in Brazil into become an influential power. To understand the situation one needs to understand the deterioration of the political landscape of the country, which is briefly discussed in the course of the article (keeping in mind that politics in Brazil has a huge complicating factor: endemic corruption).

During an Islamic conference in Chicago in 2008 I heard the audio of a speech from an Imam in which he described how Brazil would become an Islamic nation within 50 years. I was aware of what was happening in the West but I thought that Brazil would not be in the axis of Islamic interest. I was wrong. After all, Brazil is the powerhouse of South America not just due to the size of the country (remember, Brazil is larger than the US without Alaska) but also due to the size of its economy and influence. It is said that where Brazil goes so goes South America. Indeed.

In 1964 a democratic but USSR-leaning government was overthrown by the Brazilian military under the pretext of keeping Brazil from becoming a “New Cuba.” The military regime remained in power, relinquishing it slowly under pressure from a democratic front that encompassed politicians, civil society and the Brazilian Roman Catholic bishops, most of them adherents of the Liberation Theology. During this time communist-style guerrilla warfare took place and several of the guerrilla leaders ended up deported, mostly to Chile (under Allende), Cuba or France. In 1988, a new Constitution was promulgated and in 1989 presidential elections were held. The guerrilla leaders returned to the country under an amnesty law and joined a number of pro-Socialist parties. The most notable of them was the Labor Party (PT), led by the union leader Lula da Silva, who was compared by many to Lech Walesa and Václav Havel. The difference is that unlike Walesa and Havel, Lula wanted Socialism and Globalism.

The new civilian regime reached its apex during the presidency of Fernando Cardoso (1995-2003), of the also Left-leaning Social Democrats (PSDB). He controlled inflation and led the country to phenomenal growth, even though under accusations of rampant corruption. Lula da Silva was elected in 2003, remaining in power until 2011. He used the economic legacy of his predecessor, creating his own corruption base in an attempt to solidify power. His goal was to keep the Labor Party in permanent control of the Federal Government. He was followed by Dilma Roussef in 2012, but the economy did not survive 8 years of Lula da Silva and corruption that reached unprecedented levels. The corruption was made public by a few young and courageous judges in what has been know as Operation Car Wash. Dilma Roussef was impeached, being replaced by her vice-president, Michel Temer.

It should be mentioned that since Fernando Cardoso’s presidency, Brazil has turned towards the Left and several former guerrilla members have become Ministers of State. It continues up to today under the current president.

Then enters the unholy alliance between the Left and Islam, Brazilian style.

Most of the Left in Brazil is anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and Pro-Palestinian. Add to the equation the inherent animosity against the USA (accused of helping the military in 1964) and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and al-Khadafi, as well as their sympathy for Iran, and you have open doors for any Islamic leader to the high echelons of power.

Since the late 1990s there has been a growing presence of Saudi and UAE support for an exponential effort in building mosques and madrassas, even though the number of Muslims remains small (official records mention fewer than 100,000 whereas Islamic leaders mention two million).

There has been also an increase in the number of visits by Islamic leaders of any kind to government officials at state, municipal and federal levels. There has also been increasing activity dealing with public safety, including the arrest of several Muslims accused of terror plots, as well as increasing activity of Hezbollah in connection with organized crime.

But Islam has not made an impact on the local population as its leaders would like. The only way for a faster growth is by fostering Muslim immigration to Brazil. There has been a concerted effort linking government officials, NGOs (e.g., funded by the likes of George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and the Ford Foundation), Christian groups and Islamic leaders to open the doors for more immigrants and refugees. The halal industry is a door, but not to import enough Muslims. Meet the new Law of Immigration.

Senator Aloysio Nunes, himself a former guerrilla fighter, now Minister of Foreign Affairs, is the author of this legislation that, among other things, destroys the borders of the country. The main intention of the Brazilian Left is the “continental integration”, i.e., that South America becomes a single Socialist entity (they have Venezuela as a model, seriously). So, the new legislation targets primarily the free transit of foreigners from bordering countries, giving them full citizenship rights. But anyone who comes to Brazil, even as tourist, can claim the same. The doors are open to anyone, from anywhere.

Continue reading

Children, Parents, and Grandparents

Ava Lon, who normally translates German, French, and Polish for us, contributes occasional essays for Gates of Vienna. Below is her meditation on the different roles played by parents, grandparents, and other relatives in the raising of children.

Children, Parents, and Grandparents

by Ava Lon

The subject of childless Europeans keeps coming up, in reference to the high fertility of the Muslim invaders.

Thinking about this issue led me to the conclusion that cultures (and I don’t say “civilizations” for obvious reasons) that have close-knit families have a strong advantage over the West. Grandmas, sisters, cousins, aunties, make having more children simply easier for a woman: they (her family members) can help with cooking with cleaning; they can babysit when she’s seeing a doctor, or spending an afternoon with a girlfriend. Add to that the fact that in those countries, having a cleaning lady is possible even for families with modest revenues, because it’s really cheap, and you have the one of the important answers of why Western females don’t procreate. One of the answers. Not the only one.

Don’t forget that being a mother is a 24/7 job. Women do need to take a break from that, like any other human needs a break from any other job. I went through this as a young woman: without the help of a husband (who was working long hours already and two jobs at one point, so I don’t blame him), without the support of friends and families (neither my mom nor my mother-in-law were reliable helpers), one is simply very, very lonely and very, very tired. I wanted more than two children and I had to earn each of them (staying in bed for nine months every time so I wouldn’t lose them. Even so, the first time around I did, and it is still hard, years later).

And yes, I am telling you how a mother feels when she has help, instead of telling you about all she should give to her children. You know how it works: mom happy, everybody happy; and like on a plane, in case of an emergency: before you give the oxygen mask to your child, take one yourself.

If you think it sounds like a truism, think twice. It is obviously a very important factor, not having guilt-free family support, not having to pay for a baby sitter, and not being able to come home a little later, for whatever reason. It is great to come home after an afternoon of errands and find your children happily playing under the supervision of your mother, or your mother-in-law, or your sister or you aunt or all of the above. It is great to simply be able to take a shower without having someone knocking at the door of your bathroom, yelling and crying. It is wonderful to be able to take a nap, after taking care of a crying baby for a number of nights, or breastfeeding. It is something that makes you want to have more children: you just CAN imagine, that you can do it, because you know this family members want those kids as much as you want them. They will take their time and appreciate it, because those kids are perpetuating their, genes too. They make life worth living; they give life a sense of purpose.

It certainly was the case with both of my grandmothers, who willingly gave some of their time to take care of me and my cousins on both sides of the family. The best kindergarten in the world cannot replace a devout grandmother or grandfather, because children should be raised by grown-ups, and not by other children. Don’t get me wrong; kindergartens have their place society as well, not the least because some mothers have no choice; and I command them for having children, despite not having any decent support.

I am actually blaming the idea of insurance and retirement funds for that development , believe it or not. My mom or my in-laws never had to please us (my husband and me), so we would take care of them later, so we would help them in illness and old age (not that I wouldn’t do it anyway). Therefore they never felt the need, the urge, the duty, the INSTINCT of supporting their children, their grand children, their genes, their legacy.

So if you tell me that European women are lazy or selfish I’ll tell you that some really are, and that many bought the feminist narrative (about being the victims of men, and the necessity of self-affirmation by the lack of progeny). But I’ll tell you who the really lazy, selfish people are: it’s the people from the generation of my mother and from mine who couldn’t wait to retire and have fun, somewhere on a beach for the rest of their lives. I met a number of them. And yes, they worked hard, and it’s their money, and what am I talking about? But the result is very visible, because absent grandparents are extremely contraceptive.

You can look at just the next ten or twenty years of your life, and then not care about the rest, or you can make an effort and first imagine that you grandchildren will actually live way beyond your life. What world are you leaving behind? What have you done for them that was done for you? You weren’t living in a void, either; I’ll bet your parents and grandparents worked all their lives and cared about future generations more than about the next beach and golf course.

My mom didn’t, and my in-laws didn’t, when I was expecting, and was on a serious bed rest. So we had to hire someone to help, although my well-off mother-in-law lived just around the corner. And it wasn’t just me: most of my friends couldn’t count on their parents where their children were concerned. How many times have I heard that a girlfriend wished for more than one or two kids, but simply had no support from her family, except at Christmas?

I don’t say grandparents are perfect caregivers: parents aren’t; nobody is. You might still need a shrink twenty years after your mother or grandmother passes away, I know. And having brothers and sisters is no guarantee against being lonely, but perhaps better socialized and less neurotic…

I used to live in China as an expatriate. Our neighborhood was about 33% white, 33% Chinese and 33% mixed families, all of which had a cleaning and cooking ladies. Most of those women were pregnant with their third, fourth or fifth child. We arrived with a four-year-old and a baby, so I was busy with the younger one, but had we stayed longer, I would have followed the trend and example and had at least one more. Returning to Europe — where children are your problem: they should be quiet at all times (not even talking about crying kids; giggling and polite ones also seemed to annoy the general public) and are only worth mentioning when they themselves become taxpayers — was very dissuasive.

What is wrong with the West is that in some places you cannot talk to your neighbor without prior appointment on the phone. Nobody wants to be bothered. Everyone’s time is money, everyone is important and “you are taking advantage of us if you want us to babysit,” as my father-in-law used to say. He is old and half-blind today. Who do you think brought him to the doctor? My son did. And he didn’t say he was taken advantage of. But he could have.

I am not bitter. I am describing a larger trend that should be overturned, if we want to survive as a civilization. My experience was very typical in Switzerland, where I was living when my children were born. I have heard it wasn’t very different from the experience of my French and German friends (of course I cannot support it with statistics — this is an essay about my life, not a research paper; but I would love to see if anyone every was interested in the subject).

When Hillary Clinton says that it “takes a village to raise a child”, I cringe, because she means that the government should have a say in what you teach your kids. Nevertheless: yes, it used to be the village, where people knew each other. Where your family and neighbors reacted when your son or daughter was misbehaving, and made sure you, as parent, found out about it. Where your parents lived next door and children could just walk into their or the neighbors’ house.

What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with more role models in a child’s life than a mother and an all-too-frequently absent, father? What’s wrong with having more people than parents and a teacher (the government) to show the young ones what’s right and what’s wrong?

I think people should be encouraged to be grandparents. I wrote an essay about it a couple of years ago. This is also a tribute to my grandparents:

Continue reading

Renazification

Renazification
by MC

Russia and Germany were the first nations to seriously adopt the then so-called new ‘science’ of humanism, which posited that man is ‘god’ and that humanity, if taught to obey instead of think, would enter into a new utopia where each man exists for the benefit of society (a.k.a. the elite) rather than society’s existing for the benefit of man.

The new man’s religion was to be that of participation in a social collective, following rules laid down by a social elite of humanist thinkers who, by virtue of their superior intellect, knew what is best for humanity as a whole.

The Russians chose ‘class’ as their defining meme; the Germans chose ‘race’ as theirs. Every action of humanity was defined by its relationship, however tenuous, to those dominant memes.

Both of these grand experiments failed, but each with huge butchery bill in human life and toil.

But up from the ashes grow the oleanders of success.

This time the meme is qualified ‘anti-racism’, where we are all equal except anybody who is still attached to a Judeo-Christian belief system. And here I must qualify the idea of belief.

Many Christians do not actually believe in a risen Christ, and many Jews do not believe that Yah gave Moses a set of rules for living in harmony with creation at Mount Horeb. These social gospel adherents are part and parcel of the problem, not the solution. It is this phenomenon which gives rise to difficulties in perception, particularly in terms of so-called Jews in the USA who support DNC communism. Whilst these may be Jews by descent, and maybe even by tradition, their actions align with all that is abhorred by real God-centered Judaism.

The truth is that Israel is a tiny little nation state artificially created as a ‘homeland’ for Jews, much like Monrovia and Liberia were created for ex-slaves of African descent in America who were not wanted by the rest of society. To Europeans the Jews were like flea bites, and Europeans just could not resist scratching the itch. When those fleas proved difficult to exterminate, then a homeland for them was created where they could be safely despised and rejected at a distance. The amazing thing is that this was predicted in biblical prophecy.

Thus, for the ‘anti-racism’ meme to prosper, the biblical (Judeo-Christian) basis of Western society must be expunged. The picture of Jews back in the Holy Land is a vivid and enduring picture of biblical consistency. The Bible also tells us that Nimrod built Babel and its much vaunted tower, from the destruction of which Yah created ‘diversity’, nation states and languages.

Utopian political-religionists therefore do not like these pictures. Their own legacy for humanity, from which they have to continually distance themselves, is starvation, gulags and ovens. The modern ‘anti-racist’ meme serves to rebuild a figurative Babel as a one-world structure.

To many, diversity means ‘curry and chips’. To the politicians it means the dilution of the God-given nations and their Christian cultures, which are based on even more ancient Toraic principles of equality before the law.

Satan hates those Toraic principles, and even if you believe Satan to be a fantasy figure, that fantasy seems to be becoming more and more a reality before our eyes. Satan is an angel of light. He appears to us as all that is good, but always wants us to ‘do our own thing’ — that way he gets the chaos he needs to expand his domain.

The information embedded in Creation tells those of us with any intellect at all that there is a creator. Whether He/She resides in heaven or the Pleiades is irrelevant to this essay. Those who have some common sense try to live in harmony with that creation; this is called civilization. Others, however, want another, more human-foible-orientated godship (or non-godship as the case may be), and mass death always seems to be the unintended consequence. People see the light (of this fallen angel) and become ensnared. Few can then escape — to escape requires a loss of face, an admission of having been deceived by the serpent, and few are capable of such a confession. So they battle on trying to convince all and sundry that they too are godlike creatures who have a rightful control over the life and death of the great unwashed.

Continue reading

Diminishing Returns

There’s been a lot of discussion recently about declining fertility rates in the West. The aging of Western populations — along with the continuing fecundity of the Third World — generates an osmotic pressure that inexorably sucks masses of illiterate immigrants, most of them Muslims, through the increasingly porous membranes of Western societies.

The Wikipedia article on fertility rates features three tables of data from three different sources. I used the figures supplied for 2016 by the Population Reference Bureau, which were similar to those provided by the World Bank, but somewhat higher than the data in the CIA World Factbook.


(Click to enlarge)

The map above shows the fertility rates for European countries, including Russia and Turkey (which is relevant because it still has a European toehold in Constantinople).

The replacement fertility rate — the TFR under which a population will exactly reproduce itself and remain stable — is about 2.1 children per woman. Of the countries shown on the map, only two — Kosovo and Turkey — are at or above replacement rate. Romania is at the bottom with 1.2, and the average of the rest is between 1.5 and 1.6.

Analyzing these figures is complicated by the increasing numbers of Third-World immigrants and their descendants in European countries. Ideological imperatives prevent most countries from including ethnicity when collecting such data, so it’s difficult to determine how much of the higher fertility rate of, say, France is due to the substantial proportion of Muslims being sustained by a generous welfare system. The same might be said of Britain, Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands. I suspect the underlying average rate for white Europeans in those countries is closer to 1.4 or 1.5, as we see in much of Central Europe.

Within ten years or so it will be all but impossible to gather reliable fertility data on white Western Europeans, given the ideological blinders and the skewed statistics generated by the newly-arrived fecund ethnicities.

The decline in the fertility rate is similar in all the other developed nations of the world. I’ve included two tables of global data at the bottom of this post, one in descending order by fertility rate and the other alphabetical. Ethnic Europeans are not the only ones failing to procreate — Japan, China, Thailand, El Salvador, and Costa Rica are all below replacement rate. Among Muslim countries, Iran, Qatar, the UAE, Malaysia, and Lebanon have rates under 2.1.

The highest rates are found in Africa — the most destitute countries in the world. Of the higher rates outside of Africa, Afghanistan and Yemen are prominent on the list. The bulk of these people are Muslims, and most of the new arrivals in Europe come from these countries.

The current situation obviously cannot continue indefinitely. We don’t know whether fertility rates among whites in the West will ever bottom out and rebound; there are simply no historical precedents. However, as long as Western countries maintain their current welfare states — and there’s no sign of any reduction in the enthusiasm for them — young people will have to pay an increasingly higher portion of their wealth in taxes to support an increasingly elderly population, which will depress their countries’ fertility even further.

Perhaps we will end up with thinly-populated wealthy countries whose prosperity is maintained by sophisticated robotics and defended by nuclear weapons.

Or, as seems more likely, we will be gradually replaced by the “brown” people currently pouring in. When they become predominant in the population, their inherited intellectual capabilities will preclude the maintenance of any sophisticated robotics, and their skills and/or work ethic will not provide the level of wealth to which their host countries had previously been accustomed.

What will the West look like at that point? The only thing we can say with assurance is that there won’t be all that many white people left.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

With a fertility rate of 3.1, Israel is an exception to the general trend in the West. It’s hard to tell how much of that fertility is based on the Israeli Arab population (“Palestine” is listed separately, and has a rate of 4.1). However, according to anecdotal reports, the Hasidim tend to have very large families.

Table: descending order by fertility rate:

Continue reading

Is Cultural Enrichment Coming to Japan?

Japan has long been held up as a role model for those who oppose mass immigration into Western countries. The Japanese have managed to create and maintain a prosperous high-tech economy without importing millions of culture-enrichers. Like the West, the Japanese face a catastrophic demographic decline, but they have not responded to the aging of their population by inviting in a horde of illiterate young third-worlders.

Not yet, anyway.

The people who control your financial future and mine — the central bankers of Japan, Europe, and the United States — met last week in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. The banksters are deeply concerned by the failure of their current policies to maintain the global financial system in the smoothly-functioning state they prefer. Zero interest rates and massive “quantitative easing” have not restored the growth-generating conditions of the 1990s. So the world’s financial leaders are pooling their brain power in an effort to find a solution. Formerly fringe ideas such as negative interest rates — which effectively means the abolition of cash — are now on the table.

One of the proposed solutions for global fiscal anemia is that Japan should change its immigration policies and allow in significantly more migrants. It worked so well for Germany and Britain — why shouldn’t the Japanese jump on the bandwagon? The head of Japan’s central bank is apparently trying to persuade Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of the wisdom of importing youngsters en-masse from the Third World. Cultural enrichment plus financial enrichment — what could possibly go wrong?

By the way — this is the way the most crucial decisions that affect your life and mine are made. The real action is not in all the glitzy election contests and parliamentary debates. It’s right there in those plush climate-controlled venues where the global banksters meet. No one elected them, and none of us has any control over what they decide. Elected leaders can only plead with the banking wizards to adopt their preferred policies.

And the banksters are generally able to make offers that political leaders can’t refuse. So keep an eye on Japan — if the Third World starts flowing into the Home Islands, you’ll know who really rules in Japan, just as they rule everywhere else.

Below are excerpts from a Reuters report from Jackson Hole (emphasis added):

Continue reading

A Filipina Wages Jihad in Brussels

As reported in the news feed on Monday, a woman boarded a bus in Brussels and attacked two passengers with a machete, wounding them both. After leaving the bus she attacked a third victim in a fast-food restaurant. She refused to follow police instructions (presumably “Drop that knife!”) and was shot and wounded.

Early reports gave no details about the woman, but the use of a machete suggested that there may have been an Allahu Akhbar factor in the attack. Later accounts described the woman as an “Asian”. The Belgian media do not usually follow the British protocol of using the code word “Asian” for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, so it was hard to say for sure which nationality was meant.

When I told Vlad about it, he said: “I’ll bet it was a veiled Muslima from Mindanao in the Philippines.” — that is, where the MILF Islamic insurgency holds sway.

And it turns out he was right: the perp was eventually identified as a Filipina, and as the video of the shooting demonstrates, she was veiled.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Here’s one of the later news reports on the incident, from Reuters:

Brussels Police Hold Filipina After Bus Stabbing

(Reuters) – Belgian police identified a woman who stabbed and wounded three people on a Brussels bus on Monday as a 52-year-old originally from the Philippines whom they do not believe acted from political motives.

The woman, accused of attempted murder, had yet to be questioned by prosecutors as she was receiving medical attention after being shot by police during the incident on a busy shopping street, spokesman Xavier Dellicour said on Tuesday.

“No motive is being ruled out at this stage but terrorism is not the most likely case,” said Dellicour, whose office is not the one which normally handles terrorism cases in Belgium.

The three people wounded were all released from hospital on Monday. Local media quoted witnesses as saying an argument broke out on the No. 38 bus and the woman pulled out a knife. Police shot her twice after she got off but refused to cooperate.

The woman’s name has not been released.

See also:

Video transcript:

Continue reading