← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Dan Dare
Thread ID: 4601 | Posts: 27 | Started: 2003-01-24
2003-01-24 19:40 | User Profile
This is an interesting article from the American Enterprise. A lot of salient points, if a little heavy-handed on the sarcasm.
Highlighted a couple of the more striking comments, particularly the last. Whither White Nationalism if (when?) the US turns away?
Click for the full article: [url=http://www.taemag.com/taedec02a.htm]http://www.taemag.com/taedec02a.htm[/url]
**Old And In The Way **
In April of this year, I was asked by the State Department to give a presentation on American culture at a large conference of European academics, government officials, and businessmen held in Warsaw, Poland. The event was sponsored by a major German foundation, and there were hundreds of Germans and Poles in attendance, plus smaller numbers of Brits, Scandinavians, Dutch, and other Europeans. There were barons and sirs and Danish executresses in microskirts and fey Frenchmen and Italian journalists sucking cigarettes as if a firing squad awaited--the whole panoply of Eurocharacters, set among the old buildings, gray skies, jammed streets, creaky plumbing, odd haircuts, high expenses, and cramped horizons that characterize so much of Europe today. ... And it is by no means just the Germans who are exhibiting hostility toward the U.S. Even Britain, our supposed "special partner" in Europe, has gotten thoroughly swept up in the resentment game.... Today, 53 percent of the British name Europe as their closest ally, compared to a third who choose the U.S. Two decades ago, that was reversed. ... Some Europeans complain that the U.S. is more and more heading off on its own without them. They are right. America's psychic link with Europe, I suggest, is fading extremely rapidly. Keep in mind that there are currently 32 million people living in the U.S. who were born abroad, and very few of these new Americans are from Europe. For two generations now, the new blood flowing into the U.S. has come primarily from Asia, Central and South America, the Near East, and the Caribbean. America is becoming a cosmic nation, comprised of all peoples, rather than just an offshoot of Europe. ... The U.S. will never be hostile to Europe; there are too many links of kinship and shared purpose for that. But neither do I expect the U.S. will have especially warm relations with the E.U. 15 or 20 years hence. () Our commonalities are fading, and the feelings of solidarity that were so strong amidst World War II and the Cold War are now fading like winter leaves. ... I expect that Americans and Europeans will be reasonably amiable. We will vacation and attend college in each other's countries, and (one hopes) trade as easily as Canada and the U.S. do today. But it will be China, India, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, Vietnam, the Arab world, and Turkey that the U.S. will have to huddle with most earnestly at important international conclaves--not Europe.*That is, frankly, not the circumstance most Americans would prefer. By rights, Europe and America ought to remain close cousins. But Europe's current choices in politics, economics, social and family life, and moral reasoning unmistakably suggest that a less familial relationship is emerging.
That is a reality that America needs to prepare for.
(*) especially if the Ukraine and Russia join the EU by 2015 and 2020 respectively as some are predicting DD
2003-01-24 20:00 | User Profile
You have to ask what European anti-American sentiments mean. Do they mean that Europeans do not like Americans? Not usually. What they tend to mean these days is that the European will let us do the dirty work of cleaning up threats to their security in the Middle East, while at same time castigating American 'imperialism' in an attempt to counter the corrosive effects of corporate-produced American culture.
Of course, the article is dead on about the harmful effects of American immigration policies, and is right to imply that European socialist policies are almost as malignant in their effect.
2003-01-25 01:00 | User Profile
I find the recent thoughtfulness and sophistication of European leaders especially exhilarating in the face of Bush Administration's bull headed war mongering. It's good to hear voices of reason in this dangerous world and the US, even though I live in it, needs another wake-up call. The worst thing is that the American media does not represent the people at all. Recently I see some strides but not enough. If this goes as the press in America says, then I would expect a severe backlash against the American Media, 97 % Jewish. And it won't be pretty. Just think of the good people, that's the important thing. The US is not really a country at all anymore, those days are over.. but the love for life and grace on Earth in everyone's heart is still the primary staying power in all of this.
2003-01-25 10:22 | User Profile
By rights, Europe and America ought to remain close cousins. But Europe's current choices in politics, economics, social and family life, and moral reasoning unmistakably suggest that a less familial relationship is emerging.
Europe's choices, eh? Not the Chimp's choice to make unprovoked war on every towelheaded Allah jockey?
Right. Got it.
2003-01-25 14:42 | User Profile
**Exelsis_Deo: I find the recent thoughtfulness and sophistication of European leaders especially exhilarating in the face of Bush Administration's bull headed war mongering. It's good to hear voices of reason in this dangerous world ** Oh come on!! Do you think it's " thoughtfulness and sophistication" or are they just worried about losing all their investments, and the U.S. getting control of all that oil, and maybe even France and Germany being exposed as the ones selling Saddam his lastest WMD gear... NOT that I object to their sales; I just think that they are desperate to be protected against 'public' opinion and financial loss -- they are no more acting on principle than Bush is!!
2003-01-26 19:32 | User Profile
I'm wondering why we seem to be reluctant to grasp the nettle on this one.
The key question, it seems to me, is whether the US is in the process of slipping its moorings as the de facto leader of the Western world, and is readying itself for a role as a fully independent power bloc, perhaps in an effort to counter China and the EU plus Russia, the other likely 21st Century world powers.
There's little doubt that American foreign policy has been steered for some time by unseen but not unknown hands in some very strange directions. Europeans understand very well the threat from militant Islam, but would prefer a more oblique and subtler approach to securing the Middle East oil reserves than Dear Leader's bellicosity. The Bush strategy seems almost designed to enflame the 1.2 billion Muslims, and perhaps it really is.
Demographically also, the US is departing the fold of white nations. There can be no doubt that we will be a majority non-white country by mid-century, and maybe even sooner. Again looking at this through the European end of the telescope, how reliable an ally will they perceive US to be when its domestic agenda, and by extension its foreign policy, is driven by the need to counter the centrifugal force of its multiracial population?
I think we are witnessing the early beginnings of the transition of the US to non-aligned nation status, which I believe will also stimulate the rise of Festung Europa. And Mackinder turns out to have been right after all.
2003-01-26 19:43 | User Profile
'There can be no doubt that we will be a majority non-white country by mid-century, and maybe even sooner.' Um, no, there's a lot of doubt. Projections that place whites as a minority by 2050 assume continued levels of 3rd world immigration to the US. They also assume that the relative birthrates of whites v. non-whites will remain at present levels, or close to them.
'The key question, it seems to me, is whether the US is in the process of slipping its moorings as the de facto leader of the Western world, and is readying itself for a role as a fully independent power bloc, perhaps in an effort to counter China and the EU plus Russia, the other likely 21st Century world powers.' No the US is not readying itself to counter the EU plus Russia. The transatlantic relationship might have some rough spots on trade or foreign policy, but armed conflict across the Pond is about as likely as armed conflict between CA and NY.
A more plausible scenario is the US, the EU, and Russia countering China.
2003-01-26 20:07 | User Profile
Darkeddy:
I did not mean imply armed conflict between the US and the EU. Armed camps certainly but not conflict.
You are underestimating the impact of the United States' Lone Ranger policies are already having on Europe. The inevitable disengagement will result in, amongst other things, the collapse of NATO, repatriation of US forces from Europe, and the EU's wooing of Russia. The military vacuum created by the US will be filled by Europe. They can and will do it, as we have seen before.
I believe that Russia (and Ukraine) will join the EU simply because Europe EU needs them more than does the US, not only for their natural resources (oil and gas) but also for lebensraum . The EU will simply offer a better 'package'. What we are seeing now with the imminent accession of Poland and the Baltic Republics would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago. Russia and Ukraine will follow.
2003-01-26 20:17 | User Profile
I hope that the Ukraine and Russia join the EU. But I am not so sure that a transatlantic split will occur. The Bush's admininstrations 'go it alone' policy is not at all popular in the US. I doubt that future administrations will pursue it.
It would be good for the US if Europe became a strong military power. Once that happens, there will be likely be a strengthening of the transatlantic alliance. Europe is currently forcing the US into a 'go it alone' stance precisely because European politicians want to have a reason to offer to the public for why Europe needs its own military power. Once Europe gets that power, Europe will start thinking more like the US.
2003-01-27 11:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 26 2003, 14:17 Once Europe gets that power, Europe will start thinking more like the US.
Unfortunately this is quite possible, but I don't believe it to be a 'good thing'. I remember during the recent Nice Treaty debacle a leading French (I think) politician openly stated the purpose of the European Rapid Reaction Force was to "fight the resource wars of the future". I can't find the exact quote right now.
Europe wants oil, America wants oil, but there is only so much oil...
Also let's not forget Europe's highly significant Muslim population, which is growing, and the fact that Eastern Europe has little historical ties to, or affinity for, the US.
2003-01-27 23:02 | User Profile
[url=http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1042491217925&p=1012571727166]http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?p...p=1012571727166[/url]
Franco-German alliance raises US fears By Judy Dempsey in Brussels Published: January 26 2003 22:04
US envoys in Europe are putting pressure on European Union countries to weaken the deepening Franco-German alliance, fearing it will lead to a more independent European defence and foreign policy.
Diplomats say the US envoys have raised their concerns in bilateral meetings with European officials, a move that reflects the ever-widening gap in the transatlantic relationship. France and Germany have set out proposals to give the EU greater political clout.
"US diplomats have suggested to us they do not like certain aspects of the Franco-German plan," a senior European diplomat said ahead of Monday's meeting of EU foreign ministers, at which Iraq will dominate the agenda. "The Americans discreetly question how this reinvigorated alliance will change Europe in a way that could completely redefine transatlantic relations."
The transatlantic relationship has rarely been so strained as now, with the issue of Iraq pitting traditional allies, such as the US and Germany, against each other. Many European countries question Washington's motives for a possible military attack against Baghdad.
Iraq, however, has also exposed the inherent weaknesses of Europe's so-called common foreign and security policy, or CFSP. Most strikingly, the four current EU members of the United Nations Security Council - Britain, France, Germany and Spain - have repeatedly failed to agree over Iraq, robbing the EU of a single voice.
Washington, however, fears the Franco-German axis could in time overcome these weaknesses, leading to a stronger, more independent Europe, diplomats say.
They add that last week's outburst by Donald Rumsfeld, in which the US defence secretary described France and Germany as part of "the old Europe" for their opposition to military strikes against Iraq without a UN mandate, reflects such unease in Washington.
"It is not really the 'old Europe' that worries Rumsfeld. It is the 'new Europe' that France and Germany are creating," says a EU military officer. "Washington is worried about the potential of the Franco-German axis."
The US questions two aspects of the Franco-German proposals. Diplomats say Washington dislikes plans to set up a defence procurement agency that could lead to better co-ordination in spending, research and the kind of military equipment either purchased or produced by EU countries.
What particularly annoys the US, officials say, is that even Britain, its most loyal European ally, tacitly endorses these plans.
"It is strange how the US reacts," says a European military officer. "We are trying to improve our capabilities and improve co-ordination, yet Washington really worries about the defence procurement agency. Perhaps it would lose out on contracts."
The other US concern with the proposals, now finding support in the Convention on the Future of Europe, is scrapping the individual right of veto of member states over foreign policy. "The right of veto has often crippled our foreign policy, diluting decisions to the point where they lack all teeth," says an EU ambassador. "If qualified majority voting was introduced, it would make our foreign policy more focused."
The US and other non-EU countries dislike the system. "We spend a lot of time working our relations on the bilateral level," explains a US official. "If qualified majority voting was introduced, we would have to do more of our lobbying in Brussels, which will be more difficult for us."
2003-01-28 02:28 | User Profile
na Gaeil is gile Posted on Jan 27 2003, 05:12
> Once Europe gets that power, Europe will start thinking more like the US. **
Unfortunately this is quite possible, but I don't believe it to be a 'good thing'. I remember during the recent Nice Treaty debacle a leading French (I think) politician openly stated the purpose of the European Rapid Reaction Force was to "fight the resource wars of the future". I can't find the exact quote right now.
Europe wants oil, America wants oil, but there is only so much oil...**
Quite right. Our finite globe cannot afford a single country that thinks like the US, and the emergence of more disciples of Americana would only hasten our demise. Make no mistake the destruction of the Judeo-American Empire with its false gods of multiculturalism, democracy, and pyramid economics is a requisite for the emergence of an openly pro-white (measured by deeds not sentiments) society anywhere in the Occident. The death of many western institutions is inevitable but the same need not be the case for its people -- the raw material being the only thing that matters.
You stream, I stream, we all stream for oil stream. Whatever the decibel, the final prize is still only for the right to scream lost, but this is not to say that US efforts -- to procure more precious fluid so that we can temporarily maintain the privilege of paying a fraction of what our overseas brothers must fork out -- should go unacknowledged. Nor should we begrudge the French and Germans the right to better provide for their own. BTW, they will loose in this endeavour (i.e., they will scream before we will) and, for that matter, no European dominated Rapid Reaction Force will ever secure anything of value if it interferes with US interests, or worse, is in competition for something simultaneously (typically) coveted by uncle Sam.
The situation will change when Aztlan begins the physical break-up of the American Empire with its drive for independence/succession. If, despite the bribes and other acts of demeaning, it ever reaches the point where it is negotiated over how much of the state of Colorado can the poor naïve whites keep, it will dawn on even the dumbest European that the imitation of the aforesaid Judeo-American holly trinity is not the path to righteousness. The joke that will be the US in a decade or two will free the hands of other nations (and whites in US if sufficiently motivated) to use stronger medicine to remedy their social problems. To the extent that this will still be possible will depend on the number of foreigners, degree of mongrelization, and innate racism present in white populations. At the moment Europeans have an edge in all three but for how long who can say (e.g., Britain and France seem particularly determined to close the distance with North America and make up for their negligence in importing savages, but Germans and Slavs are less inclined to follow their lead and, I suspect, will do more once sensitivity for minorities grows out of fashion). Of course, all this is merely step 1 (greater ethnic/social cohesion) and I refrain from making predictions concerning step 2 (the revamping of our societies to something other than the hyper-capitalistic, environmentally hostile and Ponzi-type economic monstrosities that they currently are).
2003-01-28 04:40 | User Profile
If 'Aztlan' were to break up the US, Europe would be even less inclined to accept US values than it is at present. However, this does not mean that a militarily strong EU will not begin intervening in foreign theatres, US-style.
I see no evidence of 'Ponzi' scheme or a future large-scale collapse of the West's capitalist economies. If some like that is what whites have to wait for, we are doomed.
Unfortunately, for the forseeable future, we will be sharing a lot of territory with non-whites. There is no way around this. What we need to do is limit the damage by controlling immigration, increasing the white birth-rate, and getting more of that dreaded 'hypercapitalism' (through reductions in the size of governments), so that white per capita wealth (=power) will increase.
We need both more wealth relative to the wealth of non-white populations, and also in absolute terms. The future of the white race will be one were we share the planet with masses of poorer non-whites, who nonetheless will move closer and closer to standards of living which are hard to complain about credibly. We need strategies for preserving white culture and biological integrity in such a strange situation--one not unlike the one wealthy Jews faced while living in Europe, except that the disparities in wealth will be much greater, and there will be more opportunities for limited territorial independence. That is to say, we can expect there to be 'white towns' in Colorado, even the overall state turns majority Latino. What we need to work on is developing the legal and economic framework that allows sustainable forms of such limited white separatism. We also need to work on creating, in the white populace, the will to achieve achieve such integrity-sustaining social arrangements.
2003-01-28 06:59 | User Profile
Quite right. Our finite globe cannot afford a single country that thinks like the US, and the emergence of more disciples of Americana would only hasten our demise. Make no mistake the destruction of the Judeo-American Empire with its false gods of multiculturalism, democracy, and pyramid economics is a requisite for the emergence of an openly pro-white (measured by deeds not sentiments) society anywhere in the Occident
Sisyfos:
I trust you are not suggesting that other putative superpowers are somehow predestined to follow the American Way. In the case of China this is most emphatically not the case, and in the case of Europe all too many there are painfully aware of the baleful side-effects of the Pax Americana and its Jew-induced dystopia to view Amerikwa as any kind of model to be emulated.
Please take it as read that the dysfunctional consumer paradise as represented by the Cadillac Escalade and Wal-Mart is not what most Europeans, the dullard proletariat excepted, aspire to. There is a deep reservoir of culture, history and shared folk-memory that can and will be drawn on, both to repel the new Moors and to recharge the dynamism that will propel Europe to its rightful role as a world superpower.
Several threads need of course to begin to converge. Europe must reconcile nationhood with an effective common external policy and world-view. The key element in this is for Germany to recover its self-confidence and cast off its masochistic guilt complex. Germany must also act on its atavistic desire to cement an entente cordiale with its natural racial partner - Britain. If only that could have happened in 1910, how different the world would now be for the better. Britain and Germany together can lead the new Europe, in a way that the ersatz Franco-German alliance will never do.
There will be a strong desire and propensity to revert to traditional national roles. Britannia will once again seek to rule the waves and Germany will relish its new-found responsibility for internal security from the Atlantic to the Urals and beyond (with some support from the Brits in the dirty tricks department). Meaningful roles can be found for other key partners; the Italians for example could design the uniforms, and the French could run the Catering Corps, but all will have a part to play not least our Slavic cousins in the Heartland.
It might take 20 or 30 years for Europe's capability for power projection to reach that of the US, but it is only a question of wanting to do it and of diverting a few percentage points of GDP from social matters to external affairs. Europe can certainly afford it, and has the necessary intellectual horsepower and infrastructure. While the new Europe is adding sinew and muscle, the US will be entering the initial stages of its terminal strategic decline. It will need to disengage somehow from its increasingly fractious and burdensome multiracial empire, which at that time will stretch from Tel Aviv to Taipei, and it will be forced to risk sustained ethnic revolt at home by placing increasingly punitive taxation on the rapidly dwindling economically productive members of its domestic population.
None of this will be lost on the Europeans. They already know, for the most part, that the American Way, being a toxic brew of multiracialism, political coruption, and unbridled capitalism is socially corrosive and doomed to failure in the long run. They will turn to the treasures contained in their collective gene pool, to their long affinity with progressive social and poilitical structures, and a to big strong fence to make the Europe of the 21st Century what it was until 1913, the epicentre of world civilization.
2003-01-28 12:25 | User Profile
Your above post is very reminiscent of Oswald Mosley's 'Europe A Nation', which you are no doubt familiar with Dan. I'm sure I had an e-book version at one point but oswaldmosley.com doesn't seem to have a copy, maybe I dreamt it ;)
Still while Mosley had very many good ideas founded in the practicalities of the real world he did have a tendency to be consumed by his own rhetoric. Festung Europa is a sieve and the British are shortly to become a minority in their own capital. All the empirical evidence indicates that any new Euro power block will be little more than an "increasingly fractious and burdensome multiracial empire".
2003-01-28 23:00 | User Profile
Actually, na Gaeil is gile, I'm not that familiar with with Mosley except from old newsreels in which he comes across as a bit of an upper-class twit. It doesn't seem to have been an obvious winning proposition for Mosley to be championing Anschluss less than a generation after the Great War, so it's hardly surprising he failed to catch on.
And concerning empirical evidence, I would agree if with your prognosis if one's sources were limited to the tabloid press and the televitz. I think here though we are searching for the deeper currents that move in more mysterious ways, right?
Cheers!
2003-01-29 13:23 | User Profile
Darkeddy:
The solution is more intense. Your reluctance to part with washed-out remedies which 1) have zero chance of being implemented and 2) are faulty to the extent that they are depended on altering heretofore unalterable range of human behaviour is evidence of paradigm attachment disorder and inability to re-evaluate the nature of the relationship between citizen and state. It may be that there is a generational disconnect between us, or a difference of investment and interest it the perpetuation of the status quo. Whatever the case, I think we can both agree that when engaged in the sport of prediction we ought to, at the very least, rely on such factors as known psychology of the masses, global power distribution, and historical precedents to make the exercise appear a little less speculative. General pronouncements concerning our needs or increasing this while decreasing that will not do.
**I see no evidence of 'Ponzi' scheme or a future large-scale collapse of the West's capitalist economies. If some like that is what whites have to wait for, we are doomed. **
You are correct that reference to a ââ¬ËPonziââ¬â¢ scheme poorly captures (apart from the coupon fetish -- seen in the proliferation of stock derivatives) the aggregate of the mess our economies have become. But lack of evidence you say? The combined government (all levels), corporate and personal debt load of the US is in the tens of trillions. Perhaps youââ¬â¢re reassured by a boobtube ââ¬Åmoney honeyââ¬Â who, apart from furnishing market tips for wannabe players, tells you that there is no inflation. Does that square with your experience as a consumer and assessment of your purchasing power relative to days past? Do you know that the US has an export profile (military hardware being the notable exception) that best resembles the output of a third world country?
Unfortunately, for the forseeable future, we will be sharing a lot of territory with non-whites. There is no way around this. What we need to do is limit the damage by controlling immigration, increasing the white birth-rate, and getting more of that dreaded 'hypercapitalism' (through reductions in the size of governments), so that white per capita wealth (=power) will increase.
We are not in the business of sharing territory. As one eloquent soul put it the word ââ¬Ëintegrationââ¬â¢ is best defined as the period between when the first savage arrives and the last white leaves. Since the present republican administration runs the biggest government in history, I am curious who you think has the power to effect government downsizing?
Factors that negatively impact white birth-rate include, getting married later in life, high divorce rate, increase education of women, dual income households, use of abortion as contraceptive, and perceived inability to afford children. How many of the above variables do you foresee reversing their trajectory in the near future?
**We need both more wealth relative to the wealth of non-white populations, and also in absolute terms. The future of the white race will be one were we share the planet with masses of poorer non-whites, who nonetheless will move closer and closer to standards of living which are hard to complain about credibly. **
Disparity in wealth is by itself harmless, but when combined with white altruism and/or desire to import slaves to improve the bottom line and simultaneously punish domestic labourers the effect is disastrous. Wealth attracts invaders which we cannot repel so long as our ranks are filled with nitwits and traders.
**We need strategies for preserving white culture and biological integrity in such a strange situation--one not unlike the one wealthy Jews faced while living in Europe, except that the disparities in wealth will be much greater, and there will be more opportunities for limited territorial independence. **
On this point, assuming you are not engaging in Semitic irony, you are either very sharp or very slow. Normally I would take it that you are not here to make friends, as by now you must know better than to propose imitating the tribe, and, if your intention is otherwise, serious study of the zhidish question cries for your devotion. But perhaps you already know that most whites are in fact Jewish in their material outlook, but are utterly lacking in the decisive sphere of group-oriented behaviour. The outlook, needing only imagination, is easy, but the behaviour requires hard work combined with uncompromising position and calculating cold bloodedness, and is therefore difficult. Aryans can accommodate hard work but find the latter characteristics elusive. It must be quite amusing to tempt them with what their inner nature has overlooked in their development. Yes, whites could imitate Jews and partake in greater spoils flowing from the misery of others, but, then, few things are as frightening as another Israel with US dimensions. Yet, white group-oriented behaviour is precisely what nationalists wish for. Interesting dilemma, but one whose treatment Iââ¬â¢ll save for another day.
2003-01-29 13:36 | User Profile
Dan Dare:
**I trust you are not suggesting that other putative superpowers are somehow predestined to follow the American Way. **
Of course not. Nations are not predestined for anything, but some paths are more frequently travelled than others. There are two issues here: 1) racial composition and 2) economic and military health of society. Number two concerns all states but number one is almost an exclusive problem of white nations, and, as you suggest, is certainly not on the radar screen of the likes of China.
**Please take it as read that the dysfunctional consumer paradise as represented by the Cadillac Escalade and Wal-Mart is not what most Europeans, the dullard proletariat excepted, aspire to. There is a deep reservoir of culture, history and shared folk-memory that can and will be drawn on, both to repel the new Moors and to recharge the dynamism that will propel Europe to its rightful role as a world superpower. **
Whether they aspire to wine in lieu of beer is of no consequence; what matters is power to achieve the aims sought. It is troubling that certain variables are even worse than what North America has to contend with. The combination of lower birth rates and heavy dependence on social programs makes for pure poison, as it is harder to resist the standard drivel ââ¬â import savages, increase tax base and enjoy retirement.
**Europe must reconcile nationhood with an effective common external policy and world-view. The key element in this is for Germany to recover its self-confidence and cast off its masochistic guilt complex. **
We agree that strong Germany is central to the well-being of Europe, but the question is whether it can maintain some semblance of racial cohesion until such time that massive population transfers become politically feasible (i.e., not till the fault-line that is Aztlan hits US with an earthquake, for mere tremor will not do). Percentage wise, they are close to England and France in the number aliens they harbour, but, for the time being, appear more resilient in resisting miscegenation (e.g., recall Schroeder comment, and Claudia (hostess of MTV sister station?) debacle).
**Britannia will once again seek to rule the waves and Germany will relish its new-found responsibility for internal security from the Atlantic to the Urals and beyond (with some support from the Brits in the dirty tricks department)... **
With respect, the balance of this particular post is the product of a dreamer. Consult the latest volume of Janeââ¬â¢s Navies (reading the preface will suffice) if greater appreciation of the magnitude of the disparity between the US and all other powers is desired. In this area, I would hazard that US would maintain a lead for the next 30 years if it were to halt all construction and keep the fleet it has in commission while the whole of Europe was today by some miraculous circumstance overcome with the ââ¬Åwe want eight, we wonââ¬â¢t waitââ¬Â sentiment it has not had since Kaiserââ¬â¢s appointment of Tirpitz.
ââ¬ÅProjecting powerââ¬Â is the exclusive affair of declining empires and Europe should protect its own for the time being. It will be able to do more once US turns its full attention inward to avert an internal collapse, but only if there is the will. :unsure:
2003-01-30 02:59 | User Profile
Well Sisyfos, I can see I need to work harder to present my proposition in a way it can be more readily understood. Really the points I am trying to make are quite simple:
Both the US and Europe have racial problems, but the US's situation is more serious and probably intractable.
The foreign policy interests of the US and Europe are diverging
The US will become increasingly pre-occupied with its foreign imperatives and racially-based domestic issues; consequently there will be less interest in Europe
As the US disengages from Europe, the Europeans will seek to fill the ensuing security vacuum through EU enlargement to the East and through increasing their military capabilities
**There are two issues here: 1) racial composition and 2) economic and military health of society. **
Agreed, but in the meantime which looks like the healthier situation?
The non-white population of the US is presently 33% compared to 6% in the EU-15
There is no political constituency in the US for immigration reform. For most EU-15 governments immigration has become the #1 hot issue in the last 12 months. The public is extremely agitated on this issue and demanding an urgent fix.
The US GNP around $ 8.9 trillion, EU-15 is $ 8.5 trillion.
US military spending is about 3.2% of GDP, EU-15 about 2%
**... harder to resist the standard drivel ââ¬â import savages, increase tax base and enjoy retirement. **
But it is being resisted. Right now. The tide has turned. The non-white population of Europe will not reach even 10%, the present racial composition (very much similar to Idaho) is already political dynamite. Compare to US Census Bureau projections for 2060 that call for 50% white. And that's the Government shade of white, inflated with white-claiming Hispanics and Middle Easterners.
**We agree that strong Germany is central to the well-being of Europe, but the question is whether it can maintain some semblance of racial cohesion until such time that massive population transfers become politically feasible **
What massive transfers? There won't be any in Europe.
**With respect, the balance of this particular post is the product of a dreamer. **
Well this dreamer has spent half his life in Europe and half in the US. During the half in the US, I have been back to Europe at least 50 times. All my family is there. I listen to them. I know what they think and what they want. And sorry Dubya, it ain't the American Way. If it were the case we would have had a chain going long ago. No expat Brits or other Euros I know do that. It's only third world dregs and other no hopers who want to come here now. But anyway, I appreciate the respect.
**Consult the latest volume of Janeââ¬â¢s Navies (reading the preface will suffice) if greater appreciation of the magnitude of the disparity between the US and all other powers is desired. **
I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about later. The 1913 Janes' would have trumpeted that by policy the Royal Navy will [u]always[/u] be maintained at least twice the size of the next largest. But it wasn't, and and so what things change.
Where did I say that the EU would want to be top banana and responsible for keeping the fuzzy wuzzies in line at home and abroad? Been there done that. The US is welcome to its self-anointed role as policeman of the third world.
**Europe ...will be able to do more once US turns its full attention inward to avert an internal collapse, but only if there is the will. **
You're going farther than I would in predicting an internal collapse. What seems more likely is more of the same: white flight and higher taxes. But I agree the US will have to retrench from its other commitments to manage its internal strife. You can bet that Uncle Schmuel won't stay the whiphand on matters dear to the Inner Party, so it's likely that Europe will have to fend for itself.
But that's OK, or are you saying they won't be up to it?
2003-01-30 04:01 | User Profile
Sisyfos: The only thing more futile than trying to change long-term trends is trying to predict them. Let the rock fall for god's sake, it's not worth it.
Who really know what kind of possibilities are out there for changing the size of government or increasing the white birth rate? Contemplating how to change these is certainly more productive than contemplating the course of a supposedly un-stopable decline. I would say the chances of the white birth rate going up all on its own are far higher than the chances of their being a limited racial conflict that would motivate whites to take intelligent action.
I am not really sure what you mean about integration. There are degrees of integration. Some levels of integration can be tolerated, even if they are not desirable. We need to work around them, even as we try to limit the frequency and scale of their occurence.
'Factors that negatively impact white birth-rate include, getting married later in life, high divorce rate, increase education of women, dual income households, use of abortion as contraceptive, and perceived inability to afford children. How many of the above variables do you foresee reversing their trajectory in the near future?'
--Can women be encouraged to marry ealier in life, and can this encouragement have a real effect? Yes.
--Does divorce really impact the birth-rate in the way you suggest? I am not sure why you think it does; I certainly don't see why it would have too.
--Can we make progress in moving back to single-income households? Yes, this possible through cutting taxes, and reining in personal spending on un-necessary goods and services; and through continuous criticism of the feminist idea that women 'need' to work.
--Can we change individuals perception about the wealth required to raise children? A lot of people are trying, we can't rule out the possibility of a fair measure of success here.
'...the aggregate of the mess our economies have become.'
--The US Federal Debt level is not at a particularly high level, historically or in comparison to other nations. Personal debt levels are not at levels that suggests they will not level off once the effects of the recession wear off (after we take over Iraq).
--The GOP is taking steps to reduce the size of the government. The general political trend is right-ward, toward less government. Gen X does not trust the government, and as it comes to power, Baby Boomer optimism will fade in its effect, and melt into the conservatism of old age.
'Disparity in wealth is by itself harmless, but when combined with white altruism and/or desire to import slaves to improve the bottom line and simultaneously punish domestic labourers the effect is disastrous. Wealth attracts invaders which we cannot repel so long as our ranks are filled with nitwits and traders.' We can't stop the push factor--3rd worlders are going to want to come, regardless. We can close the borders. We now have more than enough non-white around (and in the works) to fulfill all our low-wage labor needs. People are coming to recognize this.
But you are right, we cannot be both altuistic and rich. But white altruism is the product of feeling like we were a major global population largely in control of the world. Only idiots feels like that any longer. White altruism toward non-whites will decay as the Baby Boombers do.
2003-01-30 05:40 | User Profile
Dark eddy: --Can women be encouraged to marry earlier in life, and can this encouragement have a real effect? Yes. On WHAT basis do you answer this yes? Because you WANT it to be? As women become more educated, they marry later and later (and have kids later and later, and fewer too)! Are you going to close the schools to them? (And HOW could you possibly do it?) We "encourage" young women not to have sex or drink or smoke dope -- does it WORK!?!?! (And if you suggest that movies and TV are too strong an influence in the other direction, HOW will you wrest control of the media from the jews, who WANT to keep pushing their destructive plans?!)
--Does divorce really impact the birth-rate in the way you suggest? I am not sure why you think it does; I certainly don't see why it would have too. Maybe before you offer this as a possible fix, you should look into it a bit and see if there is any data about it. You offer a 'suggestion' on the basis of "well, I don't see why it would have to..." That is hardly a basis for any premise!!
--Can we make progress in moving back to single-income households? Yes, this possible through cutting taxes, and reining in personal spending on un-necessary goods and services; and through continuous criticism of the feminist idea that women 'need' to work.
And just who are you going to get to cut those taxes? Anyone you can identify in our CURRENT govt? Even one? How are you going to convince women that they CAN rely on their husbands to support them AND the bigger number of kids you want them to have -- when it's clear that divorce leaves the women (and their kids) WAY worse off!? The vast majority of women in this country have trouble trusting that "their" men aren't going to throw them over for a newer model, and so they MUST remain able to support themselves. How comfortable would YOU feel in giving up self-supporting to trust someone else to provide for you for the rest of your life.
I have done so... it's excruciatingly hard! I trust NeoN with my life, and yet, BECAUSE I married him in my 40s, I know that I CAN take support myself. If he dies, or decides he wants a younger model, I CAN support myself, because I did for 20 years... If you want women to marry younger AND raise a bunch of kids, AND rely on a single income AND trust that the guy won't die or run off... you're not real familiar with women! (Or do you expect the state to step in and support them? Oh, wait, they do that now! Well, sort of...)
--Can we change individuals perception about the wealth required to raise children? A lot of people are trying, we can't rule out the possibility of a fair measure of success here.
Except it DOES take a great deal of money to raise children, and the more kids, the more it costs! One of the biggest 'social costs' we seem to have in this country is PAYING for all these kids that the mothers CAN'T pay for!
--The US Federal Debt level is not at a particularly high level, historically or in comparison to other nations. Personal debt levels are not at levels that suggests they will not level off once the effects of the recession wear off (after we take over Iraq).
But doesn't that assume you've got a populace that is interested in paying it off? Does the American populace seems like that to you? When we DON'T save and we DO spend on credit like there is no tomorrow? HOW do you intend to change the social and financial culture of this country?
**--The GOP is taking steps to reduce the size of the government. The general political trend is right-ward, toward less government. Gen X does not trust the government, and as it comes to power, Baby Boomer optimism will fade in its effect, and melt into the conservatism of old age. **
No, they're NOT! The political trend (whatever that is) may mean something to you, but the POLITICIANS are growing the govt just as fast as they can, and it will NOT stop!
Neil Boortz points out: Now, in this speech alone, Bush proposes: [list][]$400 billion over the next ten years to ââ¬Åreform and strengthen Medicare.ââ¬Â Thatââ¬â¢s $40 billion a year ââ¬Â¦ and donââ¬â¢t we all know it will probably be double that? []$1.2 billion to put scientists on the government dole to figure out how to run cars on hydrogen. []$600 million to help an additional 300,000 Americans get drug treatment. This is in addition to the money we are already spending on the absurd and un-winnable war on drugs. Notice he says ââ¬Åadditional 300,000 Americans.ââ¬Â Just how many are we treating now? And what is it costing us? []$15 billion over the next five years .. thatââ¬â¢s $5 billion a year ââ¬Â¦ to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. Look .. AIDS is a tragedy, no doubt. But where in our Constitution does it say that the federal government can seize money from a working American to spend on a medical treatment program in Africa? [*]$6 billion for vaccines against anthrax, smallpox and other diseases. Like with most other spending programs .. heââ¬â¢ll give this one a name. Project Bioshield.[/list]Federal spending is at a record level. The amount of our gross national product, the total value of goods and services produced in this country, that is seized and used by government is at an all time high. Record taxes and record spending, and George Bush couldnââ¬â¢t come up with one single suggestion for one single spending cut in his State of the Union message? Not one? Instead, he brags that ââ¬Ådiscretionaryââ¬Â spending will only increase by 4 percent and throws another $430 billion in spending programs in the pot?
2003-01-30 06:07 | User Profile
Avalanche - all good points, but perhaps a little off-topic? Why not start another thread.
2003-01-30 11:21 | User Profile
Your enumerated premises are sound, DD. I would merely add such caveats as budgetary means and absence of internal strife to further validate #4.
...in the meantime which looks like the healthier situation?
Europe does win hands down in the health department but that may mean different things since my criteria is strictly unidimensional ââ¬â number of aliens. The old world will always have an edge over North America by virtue of an entrenched/dominant white population accompanied by an undisputed moral authority to inhabit -- to the exclusion of others -- their continent if they so choose. If being the operative word and, really, the essence our discussion as all else is nitpicking.
**But it is being resisted. Right now. The tide has turned. The non-white population of Europe will not reach even 10%, the present racial composition (very much similar to Idaho) is already political dynamite. **
I take it you are referring to, among other things, the latest news from Britain concerning the BNP and renewed interest in the immigration issue by mainstream press. Characterizing this as a fait accompli (ââ¬Åtide has turnedââ¬Â) is a tad too ambitious. Consider the pittance that was gained and for what. The right to raise the issue in public and to engage in something approaching an honest debate. This bounty came at the cost of an alien influx now nearing 10% of the population, accompanied by social decay, and resulting in a permanent undesirable cultural/genetic infusion, which cannot be remedied absence mass deportation (I say mass because we are into tens of millions if the whole of western Europe is considered).
What is the likely outcome of this newfound voice of reason? A complete halt in immigration or at best a 50% reduction in quota to temporary appease the noisemakers? A complete cessation is a pipe dream at this instance and, in any event, would not solve the problem of the aliens already present. They are prodigious breeders and locals are not. Neither option of extensive miscegenation or of nation within a nation is palatable.
**You're going farther than I would in predicting an internal collapse. What seems more likely is more of the same: white flight and higher taxes. But I agree the US will have to retrench from its other commitments to manage its internal strife. **
This is certainly the safer prediction and it may be that I am the dreamer when it comes to faith in an eventual internal US collapse. I see in Aztlan another Quebec, but one with favourable and practically unstoppable immigration trends. The choice between self-preservation and ethnic dismembering will be more apparent once separatist rhetoric in Southwest grows outside the confines of the more transparent Latino academics. For me, ââ¬Åfending for selfââ¬Â means starting with house cleaning. Exterior conditions permitting, I've already stated which countries (nature of my proposal necessitates complete revamping of UN laws and policies, hence, deportations, if any, will be striclty local affairs) likely to be "up for it," and make heavy use of railway networks and other transports. Little Britain, I fear, may be too far gone to undertake such un-humane measures.
BTW, my compliments on your apparent dispatching of the turban adorned rascal. More than a few took aim but yours is the coup de grace. B)
2003-01-30 12:43 | User Profile
Avalanche, in respect of your gender, I will answer your point about women. Can white women be made to act more intelligently, or must the US move further and further away from Europe as the white American womb closes amidst mass 3rd world immigration?
Obviously, getting white women to do anything expect complain and have sex with your best friend is very difficult. Hands down, this is a major problem.
However, getting women to marry earlier is maybe not impossible. You suggest it is like getting them not to have sex or smoke. But is getting married really as bad as not having sex? Or--and now this I find really unlikely--as BAD AS NOT SMOKING?
The message that is out there--from people like Maggie Gallagher, who graces the front page of Yahoo news and many a major print paper--is that if you don't get married young and start poping out some kids, your eggs will dry up and you will be left childless and bitter. Does this sort of thing have more effect than 'don't smoke, it's really stupid and you will get cancer'? Well, my sense, is--of course it bloody is!
--You suggest that white women wont marry early because they go to school. What? You can't be married and go to school? You can't get married soon after? Women have been going to school for a long time. The BA used to be called 'The Mrs. Degree.' I am not sure school is really the factor here.
--'If you want women to marry younger AND raise a bunch of kids, AND rely on a single income AND trust that the guy won't die or run off...' Trust? Well, I am not sure about trust. Why do you add this requirement in? I guess you mean: not make large-scale, disruptive plans to have an income if the man should run off. Yes, I trust that plenty of women wont make these kind of plans, even if they marry young and shoot out a horde of little rug rats. Maybe you think this assesement is due to some deep lack of familiarity with the female sex, but I would suggest it's a behavioral patter we have seen time and again--and a quite pleasant one too, at least from the male perspective.
Finally, as regards your claim that I have to disprove un-proven claims that counter my thesis: I don't think so.
2003-01-30 12:50 | User Profile
As an aside the 10% figure, which crops up from time to time, is a Eurostat figure for legal, non-nationals. It is an average for the EU zone as a whole. This does not account for non-Europeans who hold citizenship or the vast numbers of undocumented illegal immigrants. The situation is not as manageable as it appears on paper.
Below is a disturbing case study from a British White Paper on Asylum and Immigration:
June 1985 Admitted for two months, subsequently extended to December 1985 to remain as a student. December 1985 Application to remain longer as a student. Refused June 1986 January 1987 Appeal against refusal dismissed. Further application to remain as student refused March 1987. March 1987 Application for leave to appeal to the Tribunal. - Refused. July 1987 Asylum claim lodged October 1989 Asylum claim refused. Refusal papers undelivered as applicant had moved. January 1991 Applicant traced and told to leave the country. Further application made to remain on basis of marriage. May 1991 Application refused. March 1993 Deportation notice served. Applicant appeals, renewing asylum claim. September 1994 Asylum claim refused. Fresh deportation notice served. Applicant appeals August 1996 Appeal dismissed January 1998: Deportation order signed February 1998: Applicant detained and deported.
It took nearly 13 years to deport someone who was originally admitted for 2 months! Bearing in mind that the vast majority of non-Europeans in Europe arrived here over the last 10 years and that the swell is growing, it would appear that our current legislation is wholly inadequate. Even the legislation that is in place is rarely enforced due to lack of resources and political pressure from special interest groups.
The tide has not turned. Were European nations to withdraw from all asylum conventions and enforce deportation under current legislation with all available resources it might reduce the inflow by about 20%. That is not enough.
2003-01-30 17:13 | User Profile
**BTW, my compliments on your apparent dispatching of the turban adorned rascal. More than a few took aim but yours is the coup de grace. **
Glad to have been of some small service, Sisyfos.
When I was in the lurking stage and reading some of you-know-who's contributions, I thought "Hello, if this chap's an Englishman, then I'm a bloody Paki!"
But I'm not and he isn't.
2003-01-30 18:44 | User Profile
Any 'sole superpower' which diminishes its commonalities with Europe - by design - in favor of 'partnership' with Mexico, Brazil & Turkey won't have to fret much longer about the heavy burdens borne by 'sole superpowers'.
I don't understand what these flyblown backwaters can poossibly bring to the table. Unless we intend to revive the slave trade.